As Violence Escalates in Mid East

Interesting perspective from an internet message board.


-------------------------------------------------

"I can understand also why there are Palestinian sympathizers in this country. Americans had their national origin as the under dogs, the poor masses yearning to be free"


I think we all recognize that the true "Americans" were the native indian underdogs which settlers crushed, killed and sequestered onto reservations particularly when native american indians resorted to terrorist tactics to try to protect the land that was first theirs. If anything, I would imagine palistianian sympathy arises out of some sense of guilt for past transgressions.


-------------------------------------------------


"I can understand also why there are Palestinian sympathizers in this country. Americans had their national origin as the under dogs, the poor masses yearning to be free"


I think we all recognize that the true "Americans" were the native indian underdogs which settlers crushed, killed and sequestered onto reservations particularly when native american indians resorted to terrorist tactics to try to protect the land that was first theirs. If anything, I would imagine palistianian sympathy arises out of some sense of guilt for past transgressions.

If they could.


Guilt presumes you are doing something the other guy wouldn't, or nobody else would.


But there is no religion on Earth that dicates giving away land as a gift.


Land has always been, and can only be, won by blood, between people who are commercially incompatible.


Ken Hamblin put it best when he extended Wolfgang Pauli's idea to say that two cultures cannot occupy the same space at the same time. I would simply modify that to say when at least one of the cultures is non-capitalist, meaning where land rigths are not transferred in auctions, are they incompatible.


Trust me, in the end the indians would have lost all their land anyway. They could never have paid the taxes.


The problem with things that are given as gifts, or are dependent on someone else's generosity, is that they are always eventually taken away. Using Ottosen's language, nobody humors a freerider for long. The only way to get land, in the absence of auction, is through victory. Both are methods for ending conflict.


eLROY

I don’t see how the perceived guilt of Palestinian sympathizers for past transgressions would play a greater role than responsibility for current ones, if one acknowledges the truth of what I would defend as self-evident facts: Two nations have legitimate claims to the same land and rejectionist on both sides wish to deny all rights to the other. Common sense requires some form of mutual accommodation, instead of racist oppression by one side based on fears that the other would do the same if it had the upper hand. During the last 30 years there has been widespread consensus for a “two-state solution.” The chief impediment to this solution has been Israel’s insistence on maintaining control over the Palestinians in the form of tyranny (taxation and law-making without representation), military occupation, control over roads and transportation, natural resources (especially water), and the transplanting of colonists, a process Israel dramatically accelerated during a “peace process” purportedly designed to lead to Palestinian sovereignty. This remains Israel's position today, after forty years of widespread and brutal human rights abuses, including extrajudicial executions, indiscriminate use of deadly force, arbitrary arrest and detention, collective punishment, and general intimidation and humiliation, all amply documented by Amnesty International and other respected groups. Israeli rejectionism has been financed and likely been made possibly only by lavish U.S. support, and the result is what we see now.


All Americans who believe in accepting responsibility for their actions, regardless of which side they instinctively sympathize with or how they see particular issues, acknowledge that the situation of the Palestinians stems directly from the actions of their own government, which in a democracy means actions of themselves.


Against these facts we see one ubiquitous reply: the deliberate targeting of innocent civilians to gain political or military advantage is an abominable crime. I agree with this statement, but I don't believe it's genuine when it's limited to Palestinians, and is made by those that refuse to apply the same standard to the U.S. or Israel. (In other words, I believe that objections to Palestinain terrorism are invoked by people who don't really care about it -- some of whom encourage and silently welcome it -- but invoke humanity's objections to it in order to pursue unrelated ends). The current Prime Minister of Israel, for example, has directly supervised the killing of more innocent civilians than all Palestinian suicide bombers and terrorists in history. (In the Lebanese invasion, 29,500 Palestinians and Lebanese were either killed or wounded from 4 July 1982 through to 15 August 1982, 40 percent children, according to Third World Quarterly [Volume 6, Issue 4, October 1984, pp. 934-949], figures that are widely accepted in Israel and elsewhere). Sharon's crimes in turn pale by comparison to the U.S. destruction of civilian centers during WWII, Korea and Vietnam, and support and supervision of state terrorist and paramilitary terrorist operations in Central America, South America, Timor, Turkey and elsewhere, just to mention fairly recent history. When you mention these events to those that find Palestinian terrorism the paramount issue, you get a lecture on the necessity and worthiness of the cause (or sometimes the then-perceived worthiness of the cause, implying certain mistakes that we should be trusted to make no more). When Palestinians lecture about their cause when the topic is suicide bombings, they're derided as animals with no concern for victims. Overall, the so-called anti-terrorist argument isn't much of a reply, but when it's all you've got, you've got to say something.


On the other hand, you mentioned "Americans had their national origin as the under dogs, the poor masses yearning to be free."


As in "huddled masses yearning to breath free?" Emma Lazarus penned those lines in 1883, and they resonated with Americans responsible for the then-current U.S. atrocities against Indian resistence to the expropriation of their country. The contradiction between abstract sympathizing with the oppressed while supporting tremendous oppression would appear to remain vigorous. Anyone who’s sick of maintaining it vis-a-vis Isreal and the Palestinians might be interested in the link below.

Keeping this somewhat civil, isn't this really about what's moral or immoral? I choose to leave guilt out of it for now. Are you implying that it was OK for the european settlers to massacre the native americans because it was inevitable that they would lose their land in the end? If you are implying that, then I think you're way off the mark.


Should land be won? Is it not reasonable to assume that they who found it first should get to keep it?


Trust me? Not a chance, buddy!


Given as gifts? Who gave the Idians their land in the first place? If they indeed did get it as a gift, is it morally acceptable for us to come in and confiscate it?

Why do you bother to throw these soft balls at the hardcore Anti-semites and racists? The response will be just garbage that states Palestinian suicide bombers are peaceniks, the Israelis are servants of the great Satan, and the USA is the great Satan.


What do you expect from indivduals under surveillance by the Office of Homeland Security? Just leave the topic alone, and these warped fools will go away.

"If the time should come when our people in Palestine usurp the place of the local population, the latter will not yield easily"


-Ahad Ha'Am, 1891


"[Our leaders] find it unpleasant to recall and are incensed at those who remind them that there is a nation in Palestine which is already settled there and has no intention of leaving. In the future, when this illusion is entirely obliterated and the stark reality is seen with open eyes, they will certainly understand the magnitude and importance of this quesiton and how much we shall have to work in order to come as close as possible to a solution."


-Ahad Ha'Am, 1914


"And the leadership [of the Palesinians] will pass to the moderate groups who will approach us with a proposal that we should both agree to mutual concessions. Then we may expect them to discuss honestly practical questions, such as guarantee against Arab displacement or equal rights for Arab citizens or Arab national integrity. And when that happens, I am convinced that we Jews will be found ready to give them satisfactory guarantees so that both peoples can live together in peace like good neighors."


-Ze'ev Jabotinsky, 1923

"they who found it first should get to keep it"


That is an example of a moral. Like an alien species, it first hitchhiked its way to the American continent inside Western Christian European skulls.


Indians didn't have so much morals, more just habits and rituals. Did Indians even have writing, or printing presses? I mean, if there had been a Native American Moses or Edmund Burke, would anybody have had any way to learn about what he was saying?


So far as gifts, every moment we "could" take it away but choose not to is a gift.


Moreover, giving a "private-property right" to a savage is about as useful as giving a bicycle to a jellyfish.


The Indians were free to obtain private-property rights via the same path as any European immigrant.


If they had wanted private property, they certainly didn't have to wait for us to show up to institute it. Far from understanding the notion of private property, I'm not sure if indians even were aware of gravity when we showed up, or knew which way was up.


eLROY

You seem to have placed European settlers on a higher moral plane than the Indians. What is your justification for doing so? The Indians had their own language and culture, so any Moses's or Burke's were not needed. They were getting along swimmingly without any printing presses, although I'm not sure about the written word. That argument is bunk.


In your third paragraph you go so far as to imply that the Native Americans were no more substantial than a herd of Bison. Do you really believe that? What information have you collected that backs up your assumption?


As far as the Indians not grasping the concept of gravity, or knowing "which way is up", how would you explain the history of the Europeans coming to the shores and needing the Indians to save their sorry asses?


Maybe the Indians understood the concept of gravity, just not the gravity of the appearance of the white man on their shores. If they did, perhaps they would have allowed the settlers to freeze and starve to death, rather than getting them through the winter, and thus insuring their own demise.

paraphrasing


Chris: "The Isreali's are brutal, and if it wasn't for their cruel actions, the Palestinians would peacfully be enjoying their own state on the West bank and Gaza ... forgetting their commitment to a Palestine from river to the sea."


anti-hero: "But that is no excuse for suicide bombing."


Chris: "Oh come on, everyone does it. The U.S., the Isrealis, everyone."


So ... ? I have no idea. Apparently, if at any time in the past, your enemies committed any type of brutal action, then it is ok to respond in like manner. If at any time in the past, you once set foot on another's property, you have the right to claim it; fighting for it in any manner you so desire. It seems that in Chris's world, we pick a cause and fight it out with whatever we have.


I think Isreal is going to win. Seeing as both sides have blood on their hands (for that matter, there isn't a nation or ethnic group in the world that doesn't), the one and only democracy in the Middle East winning is ok by me. I just wonder why Chris is rooting so hard for the Palestinians.

"I think Isreal is going to win."


I agree. And, part of my reason for this is watching all the debates on the cable news shows. You usually can't even get a straight answer from the Palestinian representative, while the Israeli representative answers in a clear and concise manner. If anyone watched Alan Keyes Thursday night you know what I mean.


So why is this. I think it has a lot to do with the fact that Israel is a democracy. Their cabinet meets and comes to a group decision, and everyone knows what it is. So now it is easy for any government representative to answer a question.


My guess is that on the Palestinian side this type of internal debate doesn't happen. Now when one of their representatives gets asked a question he is afraid of saying something wrong so he becomes evasive.


The result is that the Palestinians are badly losing the public debate in the United States, and their position in relation to the suicide bombers becomes indefensible.

If you don't believe in God, Ripdog, then you must certainly agree that up until the Indians endowed themselves with certain, inalienable rights, that they didn't have any. And so, without God, or Edmund Burke to say otherwise, they really were no more than animals to be pushed aside.


So far as being endowed with rights by Europeans, I am sure the indians were given ample opportunity to discard their savage ways, and to assimilate themselves into neat little isolated communities of Puritans, for instance. Nobody would have bothered them any more than they bothered Brigham Young.


The idea that the Indians would by chance be on an equal moral plain with Europeans, measured by the yardstick of Western Christian morals, which yardstick you, Ripdog, have chosen from the bag like a golf club, is ridiculous. They were scalpers, head shrinkers, and general practitioners of voodoo and the black arts.


So far as surviving cold winters, you do not need to be a human being to have survival skills. You need to be a polar bear.


You have to understand, Ripdog, that at the time the concept of a "human being" was invented, it was a novel concept. At the time, most people - slaves included - were not.


And the indians were not "getting along swimmingly." That would imply that, rather than surviving in rag-tag bunches, and killing and eating competing bunches, they would have been growing into the population numbers, and developing the technology, that could could have sustained their culture, rather than promoted its rapid displacement by the superior European one.


If the indians were getting along so swimmingly, then how come they couldn't even feed their own children?


eLROY

the indians fed themselves very easily. only after the white man came did they start to starve. they were driven off their hunting grounds and put in inhospitable places. also the buffalo were killed off to cut off their food supply, not as you read in the kit carson novels. also again the army gave them blankets to keep them warm. but didnt tell them that the blankets had small pox in them.

the old saying might makes right. thats what happened to the indians. the whites were too strong and wanted what the indians had. we got it.

There’s a difference between paraphrasing and distorting the message by putting words in the other’s mouth.


“Apparently, if at any time in the past, your enemies committed any type of brutal action, then it is ok to respond in like manner.”


I never said or implied anything of the sort, especially anything that suggested that suicide bombing of civilians was “ok.” I think it’s an abominable crime. But when those responsible for torture, murder and terrorism and their sympathizers condemn terrorism by others, you can’t take them seriously, and can’t conclude that their agenda has anything to do with the prevention or avoidance of terrorism. Instead, you have to conclude that it’s an unprincipled opposition of disliking terrorism when it’s used against them and liking it (or at least tolerating it, looking the other way) when it suits their purpose. Why would anyone believe that people like this (e.g., most editorialists and officials in the U.S. and Israel that singularly condemn Palestinian terrorism while ignoring or excusing Israel’s depradations,) are primarily motivated by the human toll of terrorism? If you want to debate whether Israel is guilty of torture, murder and terrorism, fine, many Americans believe these allegations are inaccurrate or unfair, but don’t distort my argument into something I didn’t say.


“If at any time in the past, you once set foot on another's property, you have the right to claim it; fighting for it in any manner you so desire.”


I don’t see your point, and can’t tell if you’re using this gross exaggeration to argue against Palestinian national rights or Jewish ones. Both have used similar tactics (e.g., murder of innocents) to attain their goals.


“I think Isreal is going to win.”


How? By forcibly maintaining their brutal occupation and odious colonies for all eternity? By ethnically cleansing the former Palestine of Palestinians? What’s your guess as to how many innocents on all sides will perish as a result of such “winning?”


“Seeing as both sides have blood on their hands (for that matter, there isn't a nation or ethnic group in the world that doesn't), the one and only democracy in the Middle East winning is ok by me.”


That’s good, because you’re paying for it. But how does being a democracy justify depriving people of human rights? Did the fact of democracy in the U.S. somehow justify or excuse the wars against the Indians, slavery, Japanese internment or Jim Crow?


You mentioned the Palestinian’s “commitment to a Palestine from river to the sea.” It’s a strange observation, given that Israel has something more than a “commitment” to brutally extend its domination from river to sea, more like a policy and practice of doing exactly that for the last 40 years, continuing to this very day. Still, the Palestinians want to negotiate secure borders with Israel. Don’t you think it’s at least hypocritical for Israel to say, in effect, that it won’t negotiate with the Palestinians for fear that the Palestinians will do to Israel what Israel is doing to them?

Anyway, the supposed Palestinian determination to drive Israel into the sea is hoary propaganda. According to Israeli historian Benny Morris:


“Like most nationalist movements, Zionism, once ascendant, was unmarked by feelings of generosity towards its enemies. . . . The 1970s and 1980s had witnessed a reversal of roles. Before, the Yishuv and then Israel were willing, in principle, to talk and compromise for peace, albeit on somewhat rigid terms, and the Palestinians were, in principle, rejectionist; during the 1970s and 1980s the PLO evolved towards a conciliatory stance while Israel, under the Likud, moved away from it.”


And remains far away, as the week’s events show.


"I just wonder why Chris is rooting so hard for the Palestinians."


Try rereading the post.

Who do you think you are? The Indians certainly believe in God. Maybe not Jesus, but neither does the majority of the world believe in that fairy tale. Until eLROY discovored bigotry and hatred, he had low self-esteem and an inferiority complex. This is why he insists on insulting others. It's sad that Malmuth permits you to continue to post this crap. Of course, Malmuth is a God in his own mind. You and he have a lot in common. Are you sure you are not related?

If one would apply your logic to 9/11, then Saudi Arabians oppose a US military presece in Saudi Arabia. The Saudi Government is brutal and would not stand without this presence; therefore, 9/11 is justified. Obviously, this is ridiculous. Terrorism is nothing more than ootright cowardice and murder.


You are wrong in your logic about the Middle-East in every respect. The only goal of the Palestinians since the late 1940's has been to exterminate the Jews. They have tried hard to do so. They have lost the wars because the Jews are better fighters. The PA negotiates by terror. Hamas, the PA, radical Shiites, and of course Saddam and Al Queda all share the philoshpy that the only good Jew is a dead Jew.


If the Native-Americans and Hispanics in the Southwest (formerly Mexico) had continued to use suicide bombing tactics, the USA would have killed them all.


Ghandi, Cesar Chavez, and Dr. King demonstrated the road to true victory against British Imperialism and American apartheid.


The Beatles said that if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, no one will listen to you anyhow.


No one is listening to you, sir.

'The Beatles said that if you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, no one will listen to you anyhow. '


quote.

...,aint gonna make it with anyone anyhow.


brad

Just in case you were wondering: Indians did not invent scalping - British soldiers did. British soldiers were paid a bounty for killing Indians; the scalps were the means of proof. When the soldiers came back from a patrol, the scalps were exchanged for money.


Of course, the Indians later practiced scalping, but it was learned from the British.


- Oski

I have read that the Indians also learned torture from the Europeans.


Far from eLROy's views, it is my belief that the Indians, although less advanced culturally, were in many ways morally superior to the white man.


They had no need for land title deeds because they were not overpopulated, and the land, like the water and skies, belonged to everyone, and was a gift from the Great Spirit.


Sequoia first put the Cherokee tongue to written form, inventing their first alphabet.

For anyone who might be interested, there is a beautiful, true book, translated by John G. Neihardt, titled Black Elk Speaks. It is the autobiographical narrative of a holy (or medicine) man of the Oglala Sioux. He relates his story, and the story of his people, including such events as the battles of Little Big Horn (Custer's last stand) and Wounded Knee, at which he was both present. He relates his youth and the customs of his people, and his visions for them, and the sad outcome of the long last road to the reservations. He relates it all with great simplicity, yet a deep spiritual wellspring seems to run underneath his words...an utterly humble man, whose words and thoughts make me ashamed I cannot more fully live my own ideals and dreams in everyday life.


Whatever true spirituality is, he lived it without pretense.

Seems like the Indians shared the land with the native animals instead of taking it over and crowding them out.


If the goal is to propagate endlessly and flood the world with one's kind, then yeah, I guess that's a bad thing. However if the goal is to live in harmony with the world and other creatures, maybe using "999" times the land to feed 1 baby isn't bad at all if it allows animals to live there as well, and keeps the sky, earth and water clear and beautiful. After all, even the most efficient possible use of land (and of water, etc.) is doomed to inadequacy if the human population keeps growing indefinitely.

"If the goal is to propagate endlessly and flood the world with one's kind, then yeah, I guess that's a bad thing."


So you are disapproving of what trees have done to mountainsides? Are you offended by how they seek to monopolize the canopy, and cover the Earth?


"Seems like the Indians shared the land with the native animals instead of taking it over and crowding them out."


The only creatures we crowd out are a handful of competing mammal predators. The birds and the bees and the microbes all thrive on and around us like a manmade reef.


"After all, even the most efficient possible use of land (and of water, etc.) is doomed to inadequacy if the human population keeps growing indefinitely."


This is just silly. The rivers people live next to have gotten cleaner over the last 2,000 years. Smoke has been removed from their campsite. As the population has grown, the calories and nutrition per person has always grown faster. The supply of everything, whether it be crude oil or species of birds, has only been rising.


Babies are beautiful and magical, just like the hole they come out of. Trees are dank, musty, gloomy, and foul. I happen to think rocks are beautiful but, just like the numbers of other creatures that can survive are dependent on the number of people, so too does the population of people tend to rise with the number of trees.


More eyes equals more beauty, you selfish prick.


eLROY

M: "After all, even the most efficient possible use of land (and of water, etc.) is doomed to inadequacy if the human population keeps growing indefinitely."


eLROY: "This is just silly. The rivers people live next to have gotten cleaner over the last 2,000 years"


M: First of all it's not silly; it should be self-evident that the planet cannot support an infinite amount of people. Second, if ALL of the rivers in the USA are cleaner today, on average, than they were 2,000 years ago, I'll swim the entire length of the Mississippi. Third, I didn't say it was either bad or good that the goal might be to flood the planet with one's own species...I just asked a question.


Where do you get off calling me a racist people-hater or a prick? You did this sort of thing before for no apparent reason, calling me a thief for robbing people through taxes (and by the way you had NO CLUE as to what my views on those matters might have been, and it wasn't even relevant to the discussion).


What's wrong with eLROY?????????????????????

"it should be self-evident that the planet cannot support an infinite amount of people"


What does that have to do with anything? As John Stuart Mill pointed out, a fixed number of musical notes makes it "self evident" that we cannot invent an infinite variety of music. But as Thomas Sowell pointed out, when John Stuart Mill wrote that, much of popular classical music had not yet been composed, and jazz and hip-hop had not even been conceived.


Indefinitely does not equal infinity, but it does equal better off every century for 5,000 years. You could get a clue by reading the following link, but I know you won't:


http://www.juliansimon.com/writings/Ultimate_Resource/


And specifically referred to the rivers people actually live or lived next to, because you are using the human yardtsick to measure cleanliness. For nearly any type of uncleanliness, there is some creature that likes it.


And I called you a prick because it's fun, and because I knew you'd come back and start whining. If you want to know what is wrong with someone, look at yourself in the mirror and ask why you would let someone steal half your income!


eLROY

I reviewed the table of contents and scanned most of one of the articles. I couldn't help but notice a few similarities between his writing style and yours. All I can say at this point is that I don't think more people necessarily equals more beauty...I tend to think beauty is more a function of quality than of quantity. Even rats overpopulated in a cage become surly, aggressive and neurotic. Humans locked in traffic jams resort to 'road rage.' I maintain that the Earth can only healthily support a limited number of people, and further fear that we are fast approaching these boundaries. By the way, no ecosystem can thrive when it is too top-heavy. By that I mean it takes a great many fish to feed a few whales, a great many mosquitoes to feed a handful of bats. We as humans are perched pretty much at the top. Of course there are more trees than humans, as you point out, but the Earth can support more trees than humans just as it can support more insects than birds. As humans we have the potential to think about the impact we are having on the world. I suggest we use that opportunity wisely.


As for your comments about taxation, my actual views on that subject are probably closer to Libertarian than to any other well-known view. I don't see why you equated my past posts concerning the environment with taxation, much less with any certain view about taxes. You seem to make many unfounded assumptions about others.


This last post of yours is less lunatic than many others of yours so I won't have to remark, as I was going to, that if it were my Forum instead of Mason's, I would consider banning you for disruptive lunacy except for the fact that off-the-wall posts just might increase the number of hits. However I would suggest that you refrain from name-calling in the future, as it does degrade the quality of these forums. Hopefully you might have an eye for quality as well as for unusual viewpoints.

M,


Elroy's statement is untrue; Indians knew a little something about agriculture, after all.


John

He didn't mean anything positive. He still correctly called you a racist, people hater. The sad thing is that you hate yourself more than anyone else.

People only laugh at you,eLROY Malmouth. Never with you.

I knew eLROY's "999 times" was an overblown figure plucked out of the air, but I don't know what the actual figure might be. I do like popcorn though.

The September 11 terrorist attack occurs and Bush declares a war on terrorism, sends troops to Afghanistan to weed them out, and reaffirms our committment to not negotiate with terrorists. Isreal is and has been the target of many terrorist attacks, sends troops to the West Bank to weed out terrorists. As far as I know the Palestenians have not disavowed terrorism and in fact have maintained the terrorist attacks. Bush tells Israel to pull it's troops back and is now going to supposedly negotiate with Arafat.


I've come to the conclusion that we can hardly blame Israel in fact we need to support Israel in the fight against terrorism. It's inevitable that the USA's committment to Israel be scrutinized in times like this. However, in my mind without an end to terrorist activities and without a committment to end such activities by the leadership of those who have adopted these tactics, we must continue along the path of fighting terrorism and we must support Israel in their efforts to eradicate this menace from their country as well as others. People can point out all the negative things they want to about Israel and how they've treated the Palestinians but until they (Palestinians) disavow terrorism there is nothing that can be done in addressing their issues.

I heard an interesting discussion yesterday. The point was that our support of Israel is mandatory because if we pulled back our support, the Arab countries that surround Israel would presumably join together and try to remove Israel from the face of the earth. Israel in response would airmail some nukes into each of the offending countries. On top of our need to control the price of oil, is this another viable reason to support Israel (to prevent a nuclear war in the Middle East)?