Palestine

[Leonardo17]

 
Please erase this

[Bucky Ball]

If you want to go after Bibi, I agree, I don't like him, he is corrupt. If you want to criticize the continued land grabs by their far right right wing Jews, I also agree. But I will never advocate targeting their entire population. Israelis are like Americans right now, held hostage by a minority extreme right wing party. 

Hamas are not freedom fighters, they are religious terrorists backed by Iran. Both follow the extreme interpretations of Sharia law and the Hadiths. Even if Israel did not exist Hamas would want the deaths of any infidel. Hamas does not want to protect religious or political pluralism. Hamas is hijacking Palestine the way Bibi has hijacked Israel the way Trump has hijacked America.

   I don’t think Netanyahu is a typical populist.
 

---

 
   I think he is more of a dinosaur (I was in high school when he was the prime-minister of Israel for the first time). Besides, Israel’s military actions to dismantle Hamas infrastructure is not a lie either. Images are speaking for themselves. Here is a link on Hamas Tunnels under the Al-Shifa Hospital:
 



 
The main issue with Netanyahu may be related to him and his allies willing to take all of Palestine and turn it into Israel. That’s religious dogmatism and that’s religious extremism too. If Israel says that, the other party will want all of Israel to be dismantled and this isn’t going to work either.
 
There is a bigger picture here. The entire region is unstable. Political Islamist are either in direct positions of power and/or are close allies within the existing autocratic governments in the region.
 
And this gives Zionists an excuse to treat all Arabs as backward savages and pursue their plan of annexation in all Palestinian territories.
 
So if there is a will to deescalate (and I think this is the case because now people in the West are mobilizing and starting to see the situation exactly as it is).

1) You need to work with “stable” Arab governments like Tunisia, Morocco, Saudi Arabia + Satellites to “modernize” and become impermeable toward populist / political İslamist forces. Countries like Pakistan should be supported economically so that they are able to move toward more stable societies. Political İslam needs masses of hopeless people without a vision for the future. So let’s work with the UN and prevent that.

2) In countries with instability (Libya, Palestine, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen, Iran etc.) you need to work with China. Predatory policies aiming to compete for the control a countries resource like Oil, Natural Gas and other minerals should be abandoned (at least for this very sensitive region). Less predatory and more constructive approaches that are carried out in synchronization with Beijing can lead to the gradual transformation of these countries. Meaning: the CIA + the Mossad should not …ck these countries up anymore. Only secular / constructive, job creating parties who really care for their people should be supported and dealed with. / And Israel should work with these parties to create stability in these countries (not the opposite).

3) All the settlers must return to Israel and the Palestinian territories should be left alone. If there are security issues, Blue Helmets or the military of other Arab nations should move in to prevent the operations of radical terrorist groups.
 
And on Zionism: It’s only a piece of land. There is no “Holy Land”, there is no “Chosen People” (Not in a spiritual perspective). The main issue is for Jews to have a state in which they will be secure. That should be the main goal here. Not some “Command and Conquer 2” Style geographic domination project.
 

---

 
And this could be the main problem with Netanyahu. A more left-wing Israeli government backed by a Democrat governed or Non-Trumpist Republican Party governed US could do these things and I don’t see any other solution to this problem.

---

---

Israel has never been shy about tying criticism of the state’s political and military actions to antisemitism as a way of delegitimizing any criticism of the jewish state or its policies,    nor had it ever been shy about skating right to the edge, and often over the edge, of implied such deflection to be  a uniquely jewish privilege earned by jewish people’s historic suffering,  even when the criticism pertains to israel’s policies towards people who did not play the big parts in jewish people’s historic suffering.

I still believe they should consider themselves lucky for being able to restore at least some part of their land some 2000 after it was completely destroyed by the Romans.

---

 
If you are not a believer in some conspiracy theories, than you would have to acknowledge how lucky they are.
 
Look at Armenians for instance. This used to be how big they were and they had many settlements in the Western parts of Anatolia as late as the early 20th century (We have several places near the Capital Ankara here that used to be Armenian settlements with Churches with beautyfull reliefs and/or wall paintings, old Stone-built houses, very large vineyards, wine production sites etc.). Now they are confined to a country half the size of Georgia. As I said: this isn’t “Command and Conquer II” and/or Sid Meier’s Civilization here. There are real people inhabiting these real pieces of land. So we all have to be realistic on this:

---

---

---

That’s not what he said. The point is that even though there is real, repugnant, and dangerous anti-Semitism in the world, Israel has a habit of labeling any criticism of its governmental policies as being anti-Semitic, even when it’s not.

Boru

- There are so many conspiracy theories. Middle-Easterners are for the most part uneducated and easy to impress. The conspiracy theories of Political Islamists on Jews are very similar to the conspiracy theories of White-Supremacists / Neo-Nazis etc.

---

And real facts (like unconditional support from some Western Nations) are sort of reinforcing these conspiracy theories.
 
So there has to be more communication and perhaps less “unconditional support” to Israel.
 
Also: People should stop to treat that region as some oil and gas producing colonized region with authoritarian rulers who are allowed to do whatever they want as long as they keep providing the West with whatever resources they first came here to get.
 
Imperial policies are creating poverty and hopelessness. Poor and desperate people will try to

1) Migrate to another country.

2) Join a radical organization to do completely radical things.
 
/A new political approach is needed 
 
And back to the subject: The issue of minorities in Europe is also very complicated. Many people with migration background are feeling rejected by society and unable to become like “The whites” if you like. So there are projects that are designed to reach these people before the extremist terror organizations (In all European countries that I know of).
 
Yet, for many of them being “anti-Semitic” is a way of expressing their cultural identity. You know: It’s completely cool to hate Jews if you are in some place in Lebanon. In Brussels or in Berlin it’s totally uncool and it’s anti-Semitic. I know how teachers in these countries are struggling to even get these youngsters to have some form of perspective on the Palestinian issue for instance.

---

It’s so deeply entrenched in their social memory. Meaning: 70 years ago Israel did kick them out of their lands with brutal force. 

There are now, according to the UN, 700,000 illegal Israeli "settlers" in Palestinian territory. West Bank and East Jerusalem. 
How many "terrorists" do you feel have been produced by this, real human people who feel they have no power ? The Jews declared themselves to be "chosen".
I am not anti-sematic, I am anti theist.
Gaza was totally barricaded, in every direction. 

Does anyone here listen to Hannan Ashwani, PhD ... is she reasonable and  objective, in your opinion ? 
I am allergic to Zionism, .... where to I go to see beyond this ? 
The idea that certain people (only) get to re-inhabit (despite any historical reality) their "ancestral homeland" is preposterous. 
If the US supports this, then how many indigenous Americans get to re-inhabit their ancestral homelands ?

[FrustratedFool]

I suspect the idea of ancestral homelands is just rhetorical/emotive device.
It makes no sense to me.

Who gets to own the land is whoever is best owning the land.

[The Grand Nudger]

On some level, it's an acknowledgement of all the labor and improvement that went into a place. We didn't find the earth this way..so if you roll up on big fields full of tomatoes you're definitely looking at the literal fruit of someone elses labor...but the dirt under those tomatoes is no more natural or native than the crop that grows out of it. The water is generally brought it. The building materials were manufactured and transported and assembled. Hundreds of years of this. Thousands of years of this. Possibly tens of thousands of years of this. Alot of death and loss and tears and sweat and expectation.

To lose all of that, to be made homeless in the most definite and overarching sense - if nothing else would make a person pick up a rock with malice....this one will. Not that this stops us from displacing people..and often by swearing up and down we'll use the land better..so, you know, thanks for all the prep work. We've got a place for you just over that hill so pack your stuff up and hit the trail. You're gonna love it, it's just as good as what we're taking.

I know all this, or at least I can conceive of it and understand, but I'm also familiar with that justification. I see my neighbors out here going broke while destroying their properties and I think "fuck, I could use that land better - and for a really decent purpose!". Thankfully, I have yet to pick up a gun and take it....but you never know, with how many kids I have a day may come where an army of my descendants finally makes good on their great great grand patrons suspicions that he could work that land better than the other guys ever did.

Just my colonizer/conqueror mindset, as the kids would say.

[FrustratedFool]

Exactly. We have an emotional reaction because we see it as intuitively fair that whoever got there first + did work on some area gets to keep it. So the rhetoric of homeland is effective for PR purposes.

But there's nothing beyond that emotion/intuition really. If you have a particular goal then it may be better that someone else has that land.

[The Grand Nudger]

IDK if I can go along with that. Yes, ofc we feel all sorts of ways about all sorts of things - but all of that work and death were not mere feelings. They were real, it really happened. Except, ofc, in cases where the claim to some ancestral home are actual bunk - invented by later people to justify a then contemporary land grab. Probably thinking they'd use it better or that some asshole in the sky or on a throne said they could/should/must.

If we say "this is my ancestral home and I have rights to it because i really really love it" - well, that's not a great argument. It may be true (that they really really love it) but that's not what makes a thing an ancestral home. If, otoh, we say "this is my ancestral home and I have rights to it because I'm from here and my family did all of this work you see all around you and we've been doing it a damned long time" - well, that's a great argument - it actually backs up the claim rather than making some other. Good arguments aren't very often compelling in these situations, granted.

To my mind, that's one of the things that a two state solution addresses (or at least could). Yes, the strong feelings we have, but also the facts. Ideally, we craft objective arguments (and agreements) precisely so that they can also exploit our emotions. Gives us two different types of motivation - in case one or the other might falter. Until both palestinians and isrealis believe that an agreement for the land not only services objective needs and claims, but also somehow makes them great (or feel great) for agreeing to it..it's going to be rough going, imo.

Mind you, I think a single unified state is even better. Just bury that hatchet and accept that, for all intents and purposes..if they ever were different people to begin with, they're the same people now.

[FrustratedFool]

The death wasn't a feeling. Your feeling about it is. It may or may not be part of your goal to feel good about those intuitions/feelings regarding death etc.

For me, my goal is my own best interest. That involves my feelings, of course, but many other things too. But ultimately it's just what I desire. Who I want to have the land is based on what I want. Other people have different feelings. That's about it.

[The Grand Nudger]

I think we both appreciate that successful states have a far broader range of interests to account for. I mean..if palestine was okay with isreal doing what it wanted because they wanted to..there wouldn't be any conflict, and vv.

Morbid curiosity, but..what do you think? Who would best use the land, and how have you determined that..if you have an idea? You just feel it, or...?

[FrustratedFool]

I recognise that I have limited knowledge and zero power to influence it, so I mostly ignore the issue. But as far as dinner table chats about it go, I think like this:

What's in my best interest in this situation? That human civilisation advances, that my national economy isn't negatively affected, that a more full-scale conflict isn't generated, that my empathic emotions aren't affected in a way that makes me feel bad.
Given the choice between supporting a mostly secular Westernised state or an Islamic resistance group it seems a general support of Israel, whilst admonishing their excesses, is the best response to meet those desires.

[The Grand Nudger]

Not so much that isreal would use the land best, then...and not at all based on how you feel (though you feel all sorts of ways about all sorts of things) but on what you think are consequential facts about the two groups and your own nations interests? So lets say the whole thing gets called isreal - I would suspect that "admonishing their excess" includes some proviso for ending de facto or de jure apartheid?

What do you think might convince palestinians to accept this, and isrealis to effect it? Like I mentioned above, this is my preferred solution - though I don't care if it all gets called isreal, or palestine, or they come up with a new name that the two places are states or republics of. I'm always looking for good lines in advocacy.