Arab Spring

[randolph]

Ila suggested that I set up a thread to discuss the Arab spring and the Middle east political situation.

What mystifies me is how the Palestinians (Gazinians) believe they won the latest round with Israel. Perhaps the political gurus on the forum would have some ideas on this.

[smc]

Originally Posted by randolph

Ila suggested that I set up a thread to discuss the Arab spring and the Middle east political situation.

What mystifies me is how the Palestinians (Gazinians) believe they won the latest round with Israel. Perhaps the political gurus on the forum would have some ideas on this.

I would be happy to have a full, detailed discussion of the Palestine question here; I have views that are quite far afield from those of the overwhelming majority of other Jews. But for now I will simply respond to your specific question.

Perhaps this idea of winning the latest round is meant only in the context of the United Nations General Assembly's symbolic vote on November 29 to upgrade the Palestinian Authority's status in the UN. From the PA's perspective, the elevation from "non-member observer entity" to "non-member observer state" is seen as providing new leverage in dealings with Israel, and represents (in the words of Mahmoud Abbas, the PA president) a "last chance to save the two-state solution."

That vote was taken, and the outcome was certainly influenced by, the relentless and disproportionate shelling of Gaza by Israel compared to the shelling of Israeli neighborhoods by Hamas from Gaza.

[randolph]

The Gazinians seem to think that the symbolic acceptance of a Palistinian state is going to solve anything. Israel has made it very plain that nothing will happen until the state of Israel is accepted by the Palestinians. They seem to have this naive view that some "hero" is going to "save" them from the sufferiing recieved from Israel.

[ila]

Originally Posted by randolph

Ila suggested that I set up a thread to discuss the Arab spring and the Middle east political situation.

What mystifies me is how the Palestinians (Gazinians) believe they won the latest round with Israel. Perhaps the political gurus on the forum would have some ideas on this.

The Palestinians think that they won because they actually did win the PR war. They did this by placing their firing positions in civilian populated areas such as apartment buildings, houses, neighbourhoods. Then they would fire rockets at Israel. The Israelis would return fire to take out the firing positions. Of course there would be civilian casualties and then the Palestinians would invite in the media to look at what the big bad Israelis did. The media, like the dutiful lapdogs that they are, would immediately scream long and loud how vile the Israelis are. The world would then condemn Israel. Meanwhile nothing would be reported on suicide bombers, rocket attacks, etc. on Israel.

Until the media actually report the news instead of giving their own biased opinions the Israelis will always lose the PR war.

[randolph]

Originally Posted by ila

The Palestinians think that they won because they actually did win the PR war. They did this by placing their firing positions in civilian populated areas such as apartment buildings, houses, neighbourhoods. Then they would fire rockets at Israel. The Israelis would return fire to take out the firing positions. Of course there would be civilian casualties and then the Palestinians would invite in the media to look at what the big bad Israelis did. The media, like the dutiful lapdogs that they are, would immediately scream long and loud how vile the Israelis are. The world would then condemn Israel. Meanwhile nothing would be reported on suicide bombers, rocket attacks, etc. on Israel.

Until the media actually report the news instead of giving their own biased opinions the Israelis will always lose the PR war.

The Palestinians have lots of legitimate grievances including the relentless colonization of their land by Israeli settlements. But what is more important for the Palistinians, winning media points or developing some kind of dialog with Israel? Israel is a very tiny country, it's about the size of Vermont and is extremely vulnerable to attack and it has very hostile neighbors.

[smc]

In my view, Israel is a colonial-settler state that has as little right to exist as white South Africa ever had to exist on the Azanian land. Israel loses the "PR war," as ila calls it, because most people in the world have a visceral negative reaction to colonization and relentless debasement of an entire people.

By the way, randolph, there is no such thing as a "Gazinian." People in Gaza are Palestinians.

[randolph]

SMC

By the way, randolph, there is no such thing as a "Gazinian." People in Gaza are Palestinians.

I made up the term Gazinian

[randolph]

SMC

In my view, Israel is a colonial-settler state that has as little right to exist as white South Africa ever had to exist on the Azanian land. Israel loses the "PR war," as ila calls it, because most people in the world have a visceral negative reaction to colonization and relentless debasement of an entire people.

The Jews and Arabs have both been in Palistine for thousands of years. It would seem that the Jews have a historical right to live in Palestine.
The Europeans have no historical right to live in south Africa. Also, for that matter, we have no historical right to live in North America.
The British well knew that a Jewish state in Palestine would cause endless trouble and they resisted it. I believe it was our doing that had a lot to do with the surviving European Jews succeeding in establishing a Jewish state in Palistine. Unfortunately, they learned a little to much from the Nazis about intolerance.

[ila]

Originally Posted by smc

In my view, Israel is a colonial-settler state that has as little right to exist as white South Africa ever had to exist on the Azanian land. Israel loses the "PR war," as ila calls it, because most people in the world have a visceral negative reaction to colonization and relentless debasement of an entire people...

So just where should the Israelis live, smc? They are on their ancestral land. The house of Israel and descendants have lived in the area of Israel for millennia. Even when the people of the twelve tribes of Israel were dispersed throughout the world there were still Israelis living in the area we now call Israel. The Arabs and the Israelis trace a common ancestry back to Abraham who, it is supposed, lived in the area of Israel.

As for the second part of your first statement I would like to know what you base this on. The current theory of evolution states that everyone alive today can trace their ancestry back to one female in southern Africa. Humans migrated out of Africa to colonize the rest of the world so it would be logical to say that no part of the world belongs to one race more than any other race.

Throughout the history of the world there has been one race or tribe moving into another?s area. The Turks, who come from the Asian steppes displaced the Greeks who had earlier displaced the Hittites. In the other direction the Greeks colonized Egypt to point of taking over the ruling class. The Greeks also colonized Sicily and southern Italy and deprived the Etruscans, who were there first, of their land.

The Hungarians are native to the steppes of Asia. The Visigoths who were originally from the area of the Black Sea settled in Spain. The Romans colonized most of Europe, parts of the Middle East, and northern Africa. The Celts drove out the original inhabitants of western Europe and went on to settle in Austria, Switzerland, northern Italy, France, Germany, and the UK. The Celts were in turn conquered by the Romans, the Franks, and the Germanic tribes all of which came out of the vast grasslands of western Asia.

The Scandinavians drove the Suomi north from their native land. They then turned their attention to the south occupying the lands of the Germanic tribes of western Europe.

The Persians tried to expand their empire west without much lasting success. They did however move east into Afghanistan and India.

The tribes of the Americas continually encroached on each other?s land.

So where is the cut-off point where it can be said that no one race or tribe allowed to settle anywhere other than where they are?

[franalexes]

In 1967 Israel was attacked on three fronts. Israel kicked ass and won Gaza, Golan heights and the west bank. Years following, they gave up Gaza. They did so on conditions that the Palestinians would be at peace.
That didn't work out to well.
Israel should never have given up what somebody else lost.


As an added note: We think of 911 as a one time, one day event. In Israel, 911 is an every day event.

[randolph]

In many parts of the world, as Ila points out, people move from one place to another, occupying other peoples land. Usually, the occupier merges with the occupied. The Spanish merged with the Aztecs and other groups in the new world. When the Jews took over a part of Palestine, they did not do this, they did not merge into the existing population. Most of the existing population was expelled. The surrounding countries would not accomodate them, consequently they, the Palestinians, became refugees. The Nazis purged Germany of Jews and other ethnic groups and the Israelis have done much the same thing, purging Israel's lands of non Jews.
It is very problematic that the Jewish survivors of the Holocaust would have been willing to accomodate the Muslims residing in the lands taken over by the Jewish refugees.
Peoples of radically different religious beliefs can live in harmony together as long as an agitator does not inflame intolerance in one group. The US, Europe and Indonesia are some examples.
We will never know whether the Jews and the Muslims could have lived in harmony in a Palestinian state.
I think it can be shown historically that when groups mix together, a synergy is produced that makes the population innovative and dynamic. Look at the US and Canada for example. Of course Muslims and Jews can never mix together, or could they?

[smc]

Originally Posted by ila

So just where should the Israelis live, smc? They are on their ancestral land. The house of Israel and descendants have lived in the area of Israel for millennia. Even when the people of the twelve tribes of Israel were dispersed throughout the world there were still Israelis living in the area we now call Israel. The Arabs and the Israelis trace a common ancestry back to Abraham who, it is supposed, lived in the area of Israel. ...

As promised:

ila raises some good points. Let me begin by defining what I mean by a "colonial-settler state."

Not all colonialism is settler colonialism. For instance, Britain colonized a large part of the world to exploit natural and human resources. Under this type of colonialism, administrators and armed forces (and their families) make up the bulk of the non-native peoples in the colony. Settlement by large numbers of people from the colonizer country is neither encouraged nor typical.

Settler colonialism, though, is about land irrespective of the natural and human resources. Settler families move in. They reproduce. They are sometimes backed up by some imperial power, either directly or indirectly, for a time. Over time, the colonization includes direct or indirect depopulation of the previous inhabitants. This may happen through expulsion, wholesale killing, or (least likely) an accelerated birthrate by the colonizers over time. As historian Patrick Wolfe has put it ?settler colonialism destroys to replace.?

Also over time, the settler population establishes its own colonizing authority.

Now, on to Israel.

In the late 19th century, a political movement called Zionism emerged as a response to anti-Semitism, particularly in Eastern Europe. The Zionists concluded that anti-Semitism could not be eliminated, and began to advocate Jewish emigration to an exclusively Jewish state that would be set up somewhere, anywhere. Theodor Herzl, acknowledged as Zionism?s founder, called in an 1896 pamphlet for a Jewish state to be set up in an undeveloped country outside Europe. He also stated explicitly that this couldn?t happen unless one of the major imperialist powers backed the Zionists. After all, they were busy carving up the world for themselves. Herzl posited that if such support could be found, the Zionist movement would conduct itself like other colonizing ventures.

By the way, the Zionists openly considered a big part of Argentina, Madagascar, and Uganda as places for the new Jewish state. These places have absolutely no connection to Judaism or the ?house of Israel? (to use ila?s term). Some religious Jews suggested Palestine, the so-called Biblical ?promised land.?

By the way, it should be pointed out that the overwhelming majority of Orthodox Jews, prior to Israel?s founding, opposed the establishment of a Jewish state in the so-called ?promised land.? This was seen as a direct affront to God, who had made a covenant with Abraham and promised that the Jews would be returned to that place by a Messiah. The establishment of a Jewish state there by men was counter to a central tenet of Judaism.

Back to Herzl. He wrote about Palestine becoming a Jewish state that it would form ?a portion of the rampart of Europe against Asia, an outpost of civilization as opposed to barbarism.? Already, the Zionists were situating their ideas in the context of a system of colonial domination, and referring to the indigenous people of Palestine as barbarians.

Once Palestine was chosen, the Zionist movement attempted to persuade one of the imperialist powers to support the colonization. They approach Turkey and Germany, but were turned down. (Yes, Germany!). The Zionists didn?t care who they allied with. Herzl approached Count Von Plehve, sponsor of the worst anti-Jewish pogroms in Russia. He wrote to him, ?Help me to reach the land sooner and the revolt [against Czarist rule] will end.? Herzl and other Zionist leaders offered to help guarantee Czarist interests in Palestine and to rid Eastern Europe and Russia of those ?noxious and subversive Anarcho-Bolshevik Jews.? In other words, the Zionists would help the Czarists get rid of people who wanted to fight anti-Semitism. Von Plehve saw an opportunity, writing: ?The Jews have been joining the revolutionary parties. We were sympathetic to your Zionist movement as long as it worked toward emigration. You don?t have to justify the movement to me. You are preaching to a convert.?

Britain took control of Palestine at the end of World War I, so the Zionists turned their lobbying to the British government. Chaim Weizmann argued, ?A Jewish Palestine would be a safeguard to England, in particular in respect to the Suez Canal.? You see how the Jewish state project begins to have less and less to do with anti-Semitism and more and more to do with traditional colonial interests?

On November 2, 1917, Lord Balfour, the British foreign minister Lord Balfour and a notorious anti-Semite, issued the following declaration: ?His Majesty?s Government views with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object. ...?

Notably, one of the people who played a very important role in convincing Balfour to make this declaration was General Jan Smuts, the South African delegate to the British war cabinet. Smuts, who later became South Africa?s prime minister (he?s the one who cracked down on Gandhi when he was in South Africa) was a friend of Weizmann?s; the latter often compared the Zionist?s aims in Palestine with the South African idea of creating a racially distinct colonizing population ... and all that entailed. It?s no wonder that later on, when South Africa became an international pariah, the only country that would openly sell arms to the South Africa government and that would invite its athletes to participate in events was Israel!

How did the Zionists create the Israel of today? Small Jewish settlements had existed in Palestine from the late 19th century, but after 1917 the colonization process accelerated considerably. Jewish organizations bought up large areas of land from absentee landlords, displacing large numbers of Palestinian peasants. The Zionists also began to construct an exclusively Jewish ?enclave? economy, organized around the Histadrut, the ?General Confederation of Hebrew Workers? in Palestine. Settlers would refuse to employ Arab labor and they boycotted Arab goods, seeking to destroy Palestinian Arab livelihood in the region.

Then came the 1930s. Fascism was on the rise in Europe. Most Jews didn?t want to leave Europe for Palestine, but the Zionists worked over time to get their colonial power sponsors to encourage such migration. Of all Jewish migrants from Europe in the 1930s, only about 8.5 percent went to Palestine. That number was likely accomplished only because the United States and Britain enacted immigration policies that kept a lot of Jews out, and then encouraged Palestine as an alternative.

[TO BE CONTINUED]