The Palestinians (long)

When I was a kid, Israel's place in the world was discussed often and fervently in our Jewish home. There was never any talk of the Palestinians. The Palestinians only became an issue after the 1967 war when Israel conquered the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.


For the Palestinians, the enemy that had driven them from their homes twenty years earlier was now in control of their land yet again. Isreal imposed military government and set up the usual repressive infrastructure that occupiers do when they occupy.


Moshe Dayan was the architect of Israel's policies in the occupied territories. He and his military government made strenuous efforts to bring about the emigration of as many of the territories' inhabitants as possible. He told a staff meeting that 200,000 Arabs had left the territories and "we must understand the motives and causes for the continued emigrataion of the Arabs and not undermine these causes, even if they are lack of security and lack of employment, because after all, we want to create a new map."


This type of thinking was guided by the idea that the Arabs, starved of land and water, and denied the possibility of industrial development, would gradually just drift away. And a lot of them did; perhaps as many as 20,000 more left each year than entered.


Various economic measures were adopted to make life difficult for the population. Industrial development was frustrated so that the prospective industries would not compete with those of Israel. Protectionist policy turned the territories into major buyers of Israeli goods and they became Israel's second largest export market. The military government made sure that farmers coudn't compete with Israel for home or foreign markets.


Political freedom was severely curtailed. Strict censorship of news and books was imposed.


The vast majority of West Bank and Gaza Arabs naturally hated the occupation from the very beginning. Israelis told the world they they were diffeent than other occupiers. They were not. Like all such occupations, theirs was founded on brutal force, repression, fear, collaboration, treachery, beatings, torture chambers, and daily intimidation, humiliation and manipulation. Military administration, unencumbered by the civil rights considerations that applied in Israel, suppressed dissidence and protest. There were curfews and house arrest, with resulting loss of wages. The judicial process, ending in prison terms or fines or expulsions will certainly go down as a dark chapter in the history of Israel's judicial system. There was administrative detention, or imprisonment without trial, for renewable six-month terms, and commercial and school shutdowns when protests were not to the liking of the military authorities.


With the crushing of civil dissent and disobedience in September 1967, opponents of Israeli rule began to turn to armed resistance, which was met with midnight sweeps and arrests, beatings, sensory deprivation measures and torture to extract information and confessions, military courts which bore no resemblance to Israeli judicial process, the demolition of suspects' homes, and longs periods of administrative detention and deportations.


It is interesting that most of these measures had been introduced by the British during their suppression of the Arab rebellion of the 1930s and were still on the statute books.


Golda Meir, who had long insisted that the Palestinian people didn't exist, said, "I am shocked [by the criticism from within Israel]. All of me rebels against professors and intellectuals who have introduced the moral issue. For me the supreme morality is that the Jewish people has a right to exist. Without that there is no morality in the world."


Thus the 1967 war and its aftermath of occupation, repression and expansionism reignited Palestinian nationalism, driving thousands of young men into the resistance organizations. At the same time a messianic, expansionist wind swept over Israel: the ancient lands had been restored to God's people.


[Most of the above is drawn from Benny Morris's Righteous Victims ]


I relate the above not to excuse or justify in any degree whatsoever the policy of murder being carried out by the Palestinians today. But for those who insist that Israel has always had the moral high ground in the conflict, there is more to the story than just today's headlines.

Anything that suggests stuff like the Arabs had fewer products available, or less economic opportunity because Israel flourished, is just rubbish. If it were really about economics, all the Arabs would just convert, cooperate, trade, and join the party! I'm wondering if you can point to the spot in the Arab world where they have done very well for Joe in the street, even floating on a lake of oil.


But this is just the classic liberal economic childishness, thinking the reason that one person is poor must be because another person is rich. "Starved of land water," hah, what a joke. Before the Israelis showed up, just about the only thing those Arabs were using the land for was to take a crap on it. "Denied industrial development," "farmers compete with Israel," keep on smoking!


Next, Andy, when you say "strict censorship of news and books was imposed," you are sure as sunshine inposing your own morality. After all, every culture and political system forbids certain media. To say what is strict, and what isn't, is to say you would move in and tell them what they can read and what they can't yourself. And what you call news - in such a small geographic area - was more likley agitation and propaganda.


Now, so far as your Western-Christian morality definitions, I'm wondering what piece of land you can point me to on this Earth, in the year 2002, that wasn't originally transferred and maintained to a certain system of reassignment (our method is auction markets) by brutal force? Moreover, I am not confident violent conquest is considered immoral by Arab tribal traditions.


Is your prejudice against Israel just that they were formed more recently than other countries, so a good record of this stuff exists? Or would you deny any country the right to preserve itself, and be forced to live on the Moon? Besides, look how well Africa has done now that they finally shook off the oppressive colonialists! It's interesting that the British don't have to suppress people in Britain.


Anyway, to wrap up Andy, if you wish to apply Western-Christian notions of what is moral and what isn't - and you do - then Israel indeed has the moral high ground, and always has. That's what Israel is fighting for, the very preservation of a system of morals similar to yours - a system which enables free markets and factories - in the face of an incompatible and alien one.


Sure, Arabs have the moral high ground when they position children at military targets, when they train teenagers to blow themselves up. What are we to do when we see stuff like that? Impose our morals on them by not bombing them? No, we impose our morals on them by destroying them. Because, until you move to Palestine and convert to Islam, Andy, you know, and I know, we are right, and they are wrong.


I wonder, what the direction of Arab immigration is more often, from the US to Palestine, or from Palestine to the US? It would seem even the Arabs themselves know how to spot a superior system when they see one. So yes, it would seem that it is important even to Arabs, that nations with systems of Western morals exist, whereas Arab morals are of no use to us whatsoever except as zoo oddities.


eLROY

"Anything that suggests stuff like the Arabs had fewer products available, or less economic opportunity because Israel flourished, is just rubbish."


While I agree that there is more than just "economics" at play in the conflict (primarilly Israeli security issues). The Israeli government has undertaken repressive economic measures against the Palestinians. For example, Jewish settlers are allowed to drill water wells to greater depths than are Palestinians in the West bank.


I am not an expert on it, but there are numerous issues of "hydropolitics" at work in the west bank. For those interested, you may wish to look at the work of Arun Elhance currently a fellow at the U.S. Institute for Peace. He is the author of, " Hydropolitics in the Third World: Conflict and Cooperation in International River Basins." I haven't see this book but I know he has written about the role water will have to play in any Arab-Israeli peace settlement.


"If it were really about economics, all the Arabs would just convert, cooperate, trade, and join the party! I'm wondering if you can point to the spot in the Arab world where they have done very well for Joe in the street, even floating on a lake of oil."


The average citizen of Kuwait and (I think) Qatar and Dubai (in the UAE) have standards of wealth that compare favorably to the average American. This is why they bring in millions of guest workers to do all the menial jobs.


Regards,


Paul Talbot

I found a link to Elhance's book if anyone cares.

It does discuss the Jordan Rievr basin.

"Before the Israelis showed up, just about the only thing those Arabs were using the land for was to take a crap on it."


-The exact attitudes colonial imperialists always have about natives. If people don't use the land the way they see fit, why they're not using it at all and it's OK for us to take it from them.


"'Denied industrial development,' 'farmers compete with Israel,' keep on smoking


-I don't smoke, these are facts, deny them if you like, but they are fact.


"what you call news - in such a small geographic area - was more likely agitation and propaganda."


-Israel has a very vibrant and open free press. This was denied to people in the occupied territories because the military administration did not like what they were printing. Israel claimed it was a different kind of occupier, one who maintained full democratic norms in the territories. The censorship belies this claim.


"I'm wondering what piece of land you can point me to on this Earth, in the year 2002, that wasn't originally transferred and maintained to a certain system of reassignment (our method is auction markets) by brutal force?"


-None. But this is a very recent example of the process. And many people deny that it happened. It one thing to have acquired land by military conquest in 1628 and quite another to have done it in 1967.


"Is your prejudice against Israel. . ."


-I am not prejudiced against Israel. Pointing up facts does not constitute prejudice. Criticism of a policy of a country does not constitute prejudice.


"would you deny any country the right to preserve itself, and be forced to live on the Moon?"


-This is exactly what the British and the Zionists did to the Palestinians. The Palestinians did not qualify as a national people, however, because they were not western enough.


"we are right, and they are wrong"


-The exact attitude maintained by Sharon and Arafat and the reason why children are being killed.


"I wonder, what the direction of Arab immigration is more often, from the US to Palestine, or from Palestine to the US?"


-I pointed out in my post that emigration from the occupied territories exceed immigration into them by as much as 20,000 people a year. Is this really surprising given the conditions imposed by the occupier?


"Arab morals are of no use to us whatsoever except as zoo oddities."


-The inference that Arabs scarcely qualify as people is the typical western attitude toward "oriental" natives, the attitude that results in the natives being treated as animals.

This isn't a "Western attitude towards oriental natives." This is savages attitude towards one another.


Was it Patrick Henry's slaves who declared "Give me liberty or give me death"? Or was it Patrick Henry?


To African, or even many European imports, such a statement would have been strange talk indeed, alien.


Some people will point to the Greeks. But I would credit Edmund Burke with inventing your idea of man.


In other words, until the philosophical heirs of Edmund Burke - or at least of the Greeks - declare someone to be a "human being," a "man," a shining creation in the image of God, that CREATURE is nothing more than a worker ant.


These clan dirtbags are ENEMIES of this notion of the individual man qua man, and his supremacy within his own sphere.


eLROY

...some simpler life-form than what we are now. Probably, amoebas or something like that, when you go back far enough. As for the argument many religious folk espouse, that we were created by God, I ask why couldn't that be true also? God could have created us THROUGH a process of evolution.

AF: - "It one thing to have acquired land by military conquest in 1628 and quite another to have done it in 1967."


It is my understanding that it isn't all that simple and that Israel was acting in self-defense. Read this one-page link, if you care to, (pulled from the top of Google) and tell me what you think. I particularly found the maps, and quotes, interesting.


http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/History/67_War.html


My impression from this and from other readings has been that Israel was defending itself, and ended up gaining territory as part of an agreement to end the war. Personally I rather think Israel should have taken MORE land from the aggressors. Read, especially, the exact words quoted from Nasser and the other Arab heads of state and tell me this wasn't 100% a war of self-defense. All those heads of state made it crystal clear that they fully intended to annihilate Israel, both by precise words, and in military buildups near Israel's borders.


When Germany was defeated they lost control of some of their territory. Historically, aggression which is defeated often results in some loss of territory for the aggressors. I have read that the Arab states OFFERED Israel the lands in question as a "deal" to pull back and end the war. So Israel rightfully OWNS those lands gained. Even Germany lost control of half of its country when its war of aggression failed. It is not unusual nor out of place for failed aggression to be thus dealt with, and in a way it even makes sense, because by losing land, the aggressive party is less likely to be able to perpetrate furthert aggression in the future.

Actually, all men are created FAR FROM EQUAL...just look around you.


Maybe, and quite probably, all men should have the right to equal RIGHTS in the most basic sense, but as for being actually CREATED EQUAL, nothing could be further from the truth.


This should be obvious.

you are right of course, and i have espoused this position.


one problem with this theory is that to start from a single celled organism to get to humans would take so many mutations that there just may not be enough time for there to have been enough. I read a paper on this is college and at least froma mathematical perspective it could have some validity i suppose. plus it assumes that it all goes perfectly, and fails to explain saltations.


but i have no idea whether what i have said is true or not, these are various problems with evolutionary theory i have heard or read and dont have enough knowledge about them to know if they are accurate critiques. it might be an interesting discussion for the forum if it doesnt degrade into religion bashing.


Pat

I see no evidence that there are any "laws of God," other than the natural laws of the universe. That's not to say there couldn't be "laws of God"; just that I have thus far seen zero evidence of their existence. Perhaps others who might have seen such evidence would care to elaborate.

because children have feelings--or, at least, many times more feelings thn do amoebas

interesting point

Then why not invent a law that says Israelis can kill children, if it's convenient?


eLROY

as everyone knows, the US constition, bill of rights, doesnt grant rights to citizens.


it merely enumerates the rights which all human beings have (by virtue of their divine nature as creatures of god or whatever.)


so you can see right away why an attack on religiousness was a necessary precondition.


also view in this light the articles ( i can get links if you want) where US officials say that theyre taking terrorism suspects to countries where they can be tortured and 'threats to their families' can be made.


brad

The Libyan "Joe on the Street" does OK. he and She get a decent education and don't have to deal with a radical islamist gov't.

Is eLROY bashing ok?

The only "savages" were the westerners who systematically killed native peoples. Viewing natives as savages is again part of the attitude that says you don't think the right way, the way we do, you're not worthy of this land, we'll take it from you.


Patrick Henry was only interested in the liberty to be land speculator.


"Clan dirtbags" is another interesting expression. Again, it is this very attitude that has gotten the Jews and Palestinians into the situation they currently find themself.

In 1628, it was legitimate to take land by virtue of a war of conquest. It would be very different, I think, if, say, the Pequots said they wanted their land back now than it is for the Palestinians to say they want theirs. I think such a claim loses validity as time passes.


My comparison of the two years was made for that purpose. I am not trying to compare the 1967 war with the Pequot War. (And I may have the wrong year for the Pequot War.)


I posted what I did because I think it is important to realize that the Palestinians' hatred for the Jews has a background, a history.


The first line in your link is a myth. Israel was not constantly begging for peace and negotiations. Again, this attitude that we have always been in the right and they have always been in the wrong is what leads to stalemate.


Historically, the Palestinians have not been the aggressors. Their land was invaded, the invasion sanctioned by a European power.


Again, I think it's important to understand the history from both sides' perspective. A thorough examination of this, I believe, will find plenty of room for criticism and fault on both sides. They will never have peace unless each side can admit their own transgressions and get past the ugly history.


It is possible. Look what a prick Nasser was. Yet his successor succcessfully negotiated a peace agreement with Begin, a peace which has held to this day. Sadat was widely regarded as a lightweight when he came into office and Ben Gurion refused to even speak to Begin for many years because he rightly regarded him as a terrorist. Yet these two men displayed courage and statesmanship when it was needed.


The Palestinians need a generation of leaders that is not anti-semitic. For example, there has never been a history of the holocaust written in Arabic. In the same way the Jews fail to understand the Palestinians' nexus with the land, the Palestinians will fail to understand the Jews unless they know the history of the holocaust.


War is the only possible outcome of the present leaders' mindsets.

men have invented stranger laws

fine, the first line or paragraph or so might be partly mythical but even though that is mentioned first it doesn't comprise the bulk of the page. I don't think the rest of the history that is given regarding specific actions, quotes, etc. is myth and it clearly shows that Israel acted in self-defense in the 1967 war (regardless of what Chris Alger might claim to the contrary).

Keep in mind the source of the info. on that page.

But let's assume for the sake of discussion, that the information is 100% true. The information I posted about the post-1967 treatment of the Palestinians in the occupied territories is also 100% true. With both sides treating each other in this way, no solution is possible.

A Creationist in our midst. How totally exciting! Truly worth the price of admission to this website.


No, seriously, do you really believe that


(a) God created Man?


(b) God created men not equally but unequally according to His day's mood or the quality of material available every time?


(c) I assume that by "savages", "worker ants", and "clan dirtbags" you are referring to the Palestinians. So enlighten me, why in your opinion did God create the Palestinians so inferior to the Jews?


Bonus question : since all men were not created equal, please rank for me, a la Sklansky's ranking of starting hands, Anglo-Saxons, Russians, Jews, Arabs, and Chinese, in descending order of racial superioriy. Always wanted to know, see, from a reliable source.


...I'm so glad you are a fanatical supporter of all things Zionist. God bless you.