Wall a huge failure

[Mycroft]

Let me start off by pointing out that what you're not saying here is how the Fool's analogy fits.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
One of the principles that was developed as a means to trying to get a better world was that of sovereignty. Not a panacea, not a total solution, but a step towards a legal framework for a world.

Agreed. I would also add that it's high time the Palestinian-Arabs got busy working towards sovereignty, and made it a goal more important than killing people.

Originally posted by a_unique_person
By ignoring such a concept of Palestinians, you get the situation that exists now. The road to peace, IMHO, starts by recognising that up front.

There are four million people who have had this identity forced upon them. When the Arab world refused to take Palestinian-Arab refugees, in many cases they were refusing people who had been born within their borders, who had family and friends who were citizens.

Imagine if you had been born in Lebanon, but in 1945 had traveled to the Palestine Mandate for work, but had fled back to Lebanon in 1948 during the Israeli war of independence. Imagine being told you were no longer Lebanese but Palestinian, and for that reason you couldn't go back to your family, couldn't go back to Palestine, but could only stay in this refugee camp. Imagine 56 years later, your great grandchild becoming a man in that same refugee camp, still denied Lebanese citizenship even though you and three successive generations had been born in Lebanon, and had hundreds of Lebanese cousins.

By denying this person his Lebanese identity, "facts on the ground" were created. An open bleeding wound was not only left untreated, but inflamed and encouraged to grow. This callous willingness to create human suffering and perpetuate it generation after generation is breath-taking.

This is the foundation of the "Palestinian" identity. It’s real enough, a lot of work has gone into its creation. It’s a "fact on the ground".

The reality is there is a "Palestinian" identity, and I support the creation of an independent Palestinian-Arab state. In pointing out that there is not and has not been a Palestinian state, I’m not denying Palestinian identity, but only illustrating that such an entity has not yet been created, that it is up to the Palestinian-Arabs to create this entity (a nation can not be imposed on them by the Israelis), and that presumptions on specifics of this state are invalid until it is created.

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by davefoc
Mycroft,
Do I understand your view?

i.e. It is morally acceptable for the Israelis to build settlements on any piece of land throughout Palestine as long as that piece of land is not currently occupied by a non Israeli citizen.

Dave,

My purpose is not to defend the settlements, but only to correct the way they are portrayed. AUP and the Fool would have everyone believe the settlements are created by bulldozing Palestinian-Arab homes and building a housing development on their thousand year-old olive grove. Would you agree there is a substantive difference between this and a developer buying an undeveloped piece of land and putting up houses in exactly the same way it’s done in the United States?

From a moral point of view, I don’t think race or nationality should be a factor in deciding who is allowed to buy land and build on it. From a practical point of view, that’s naive.

Negotiations with the Palestinian-Arabs don’t happen in a vacuum, they have been at it for a very long time and talks are based upon understandings that have been reached in previous talks. Some of these understandings involve land exchanges.

I don’t personally have a problem with a housing development on land that will likely become a part of Israel in a final peace agreement, or a new apartment building built in an established Jewish community, but it’s very easy for a polemic propagandist to point to these saying, "See?! Another settlement! Israel is stealing more land and sabotaging peace!!!" If you add a little propaganda bait-and-switch by showing a picture of a wild-eyed, bearded, gun-toting extremist wearing his prayer shawl and cap that’s fifty miles from the proposed apartment building in the suburb just West of Jerusalem, you have an effective, if dishonest, propaganda tool that completely ignores the remote settlements being removed that are smack in the middle of land that would become Palestine and would be a real obstacle.

Ultimately the important thing is peace. In a final agreement it needs to be understood (and it is) that there will be elements that are unfair to individuals both Arab and Israeli.

Originally posted by davefoc
If you respond to this at all please state yes or no to my question and if the answer was no could you state what your view actually is with regard to this?

Sorry. Complex questions don’t get simple answers.

 

[a_unique_person]

Dave,

My purpose is not to defend the settlements, but only to correct the way they are portrayed. AUP and the Fool would have everyone believe the settlements are created by bulldozing Palestinian-Arab homes and building a housing development on their thousand year-old olive grove. Would you agree there is a substantive difference between this and a developer buying an undeveloped piece of land and putting up houses in exactly the same way it’s done in the United States?

The analogy would be if a Mexican national did it.

 

[Mycroft]

The analogy would be if a Mexican national did it.

So if a Mexican land developer bought some land in the United States and built houses, that would be wrong? Why?

Right now I'm financing a home purchase in the US for a citizen of Pakistan. I was looking forward to helping him get the home he wants, but should I kill him instead?

 

[varwoche]

AUP and the Fool would have everyone believe the settlements are created by bulldozing Palestinian-Arab homes and building a housing development on their thousand year-old olive grove.

I know (and am good friends with) exactly one Palestinian. (Intelligent, educated and moderate. Married a jew in fact.) This is precisely what he claims happened to his family's land.

I acknowledge this is anecdotal, and that I have no evidence supporting his claim.

 

[The Fool]

Mycroft,
Do I understand your view?

i.e. It is morally acceptable for the Israelis to build settlements on any piece of land throughout Palestine as long as that piece of land is not currently occupied by a non Israeli citizen.

If you respond to this at all please state yes or no to my question and if the answer was no could you state what your view actually is with regard to this?

good luck......

 

[Mycroft]

good luck......

Was my answer too complex for you to follow?

Just grunt, "Zionists bad!", call me a racist and go back to bed. We'll continue without you.

 

[The Fool]

Was my answer too complex for you to follow?

no, as usual it was not too complex, it was too missing.

come on Mycroft...prove me wrong, answer a question.....

 

[davefoc]

Mycroft,
Thank you for your response.

You started your post off with this statement:

My purpose is not to defend the settlements, but only to correct the way they are portrayed. AUP and the Fool would have everyone believe the settlements are created by bulldozing Palestinian-Arab homes and building a housing development on their thousand year-old olive grove.

If you don't want to defend the settlements then we have only academic disagreements. I think the founding of Israel was a bad idea that caused enormous hardships on the indigenous population, and on Jewish populations throughout the middle east. And further that led to a destabilization of the entire region and potentially the entire world. I understand that you don't agree with this, but I say that our disagreement on this is academic because with respect to this I would agree with you that the state of Israel is a fact and any change with regard to that fact would cause enormous unjustified hardship and suffering.

And I agree with you that expanding settlements on land already confiscated from what little land is left for a Palestinian state is something different than going out and confiscating new land. I think in this change can be seen a hint of what Sharon sees as the endgame for Palestinian autonomy. I think Sharon’s intentions now are to limit Israel land confiscations to new land required to build roads for existing settlements and land for his wall. The settlements will stay in place, the checkpoints will stay in place, the security roads will stay in place, and the wall will stay in place. The Palestinian areas will become more isolated, a Palestinian state will become an impossible dream because the inhabited areas will be too disjointed to make an economically viable country and Palestinians will gradually get tired of the whole thing and just move away potentially allowing for in the very long term the final colonization of all of Palestine by the Israelis.

Although you say it is not your purpose to defend the settlements as a practical matter you have defended them up to now in almost every possible way. Yes I understand that you would oppose them if all Palestinian violence suddenly ended. But when a people is boxed in with no place to go do you think it is realistic that suddenly the entire cornered population will simultaneously cease all violence against those that have boxed them in? This will never happen and with this cute little dodge Israel’s occupation can be forever justified.

Who do you think the expansion of Israel onto Palestinian land since 1967 has been good for? How do you justify it? ZN regales us with all the Israeli military victories and you both regale us with stories about the Palestinian terrorist attacks and with stories about what a bad person Arafat is but neither of you have ever remotely provided a moral justification for this expansion.

But to hell with morality, who has this expansion of the original colonial boundaries of Israel benefited? Certainly not the American taxpayer who has not only subsidized this expansion but has subsidized the military expenditures to defend it. Certainly not the Israelis who have lost billions of dollars from world wide boycotts as a result and who live in a country struggling under years of terrorist attacks. Certainly not Jews throughout the world who suffer from the anti-Semitism spawned by the Israeli occupation. So who the hell is better off today because of this occupation. I suppose a few religious zealots living on land in the occupied territories glorying in what they see as religious prophesy fulfillment, drawing subsidized salaries from the Israel government and the US government indirectly while they harass the local Palestinians with the Israel army standing around to protect them are beneficiaries of this policy. But who else?

 

[Mycroft]

Assuming the land is legally purchased, in what way does building a housing development intrinsically harm the Palestinian-Arabs?

Answer honestly.

You mention all these terrible things; the fence, checkpoints, security roads. Do you realize all of these are recent developments? Do you realize they’ve all been implemented since the intifada? That they didn’t exist for the previous 33 years?

AUP seemed to think I would instantly understand if it were Mexican nationals building in the United States. I think he assumed "natural" racism would kick in and it would make a difference. I don’t think it makes a difference, do you?

 

[a_unique_person]

Assuming the land is legally purchased, in what way does building a housing development intrinsically harm the Palestinian-Arabs?

Answer honestly.

You mention all these terrible things; the fence, checkpoints, security roads. Do you realize all of these are recent developments? Do you realize they’ve all been implemented since the intifada? That they didn’t exist for the previous 33 years?

AUP seemed to think I would instantly understand if it were Mexican nationals building in the United States. I think he assumed "natural" racism would kick in and it would make a difference. I don’t think it makes a difference, do you?

Once again, if they created a Mexican state, it would indeed be an issue.

 

[davefoc]

Mycroft,
I will provide a response to most of your post tomorrow.

However, I would like to respond to this this evening:

AUP seemed to think I would instantly understand if it were Mexican nationals building in the United States. I think he assumed "natural" racism would kick in and it would make a difference. I don’t think it makes a difference, do you?

With respect, I think AUP only thought that your common sense would kick in. Almost the only service that is universally expected of a political system by its population is that the borders be secured and that movement into the territory be restricted to immigration that is considered beneficial to the existing population. No population has ever considered unlimited immigration that would make it a minority in its own land as benficial.

But when that immigrating population comes in with the clear intent of making itself the majority population, and buys up land and establishes rules that prevents the resale of that land to the indigenous population and further sets up industries and farms that are restricted from hiring the local population it is farfetched that you can assert that the indigenous population is some kind of evil population because they resist the immigration with violence.

What is even more amazing is that you assert that the indigenous population should understand that this immigration is really good for them because clearly the restrictions on land ownership and employment won't last forever and then they be able to enjoy all the wonderful benefits that the immigrating population intended for them.

And then to provide a little topper to all this you assert that since there wasn't a government of Palestinians in Palestine at the time that all this was going on that they didn't really have the right to restrict immigration like they would have if they had their own government at the time. Exactly why this makes a massive immigration opposed by the local population justified is beyond me.

 

[Question]

-- Post could not be deleted. Why? --

 

[zenith-nadir]

I think the founding of Israel was a bad idea that caused enormous hardships on the indigenous population, and on Jewish populations throughout the middle east. And further that led to a destabilization of the entire region and potentially the entire world.

I don't think the founding of Israel was a bad idea. I think it was a good idea after what happened in WW2. I think that the outright Arab rejection of the foundation of Israel, the invasion by the Arab armies of Egypt, Syria, Transjordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Lebanon on May 15th 1948, the well-documented conspiracy with the Third Reich and Hitler to wipe out the jews in Palestine by Haj Amin al-Husseini, the expulsion of 800,000 jews from Arab countries, the wars in 1956, 1967, 1973 and 1982 and the continual terrorist attacks from Palestinian arabs led to a destabilization of the entire region...not Israel's founding.

ZN regales us with all the Israeli military victories and you both regale us with stories about the Palestinian terrorist attacks and with stories about what a bad person Arafat is but neither of you have ever remotely provided a moral justification for this expansion.

Yup, typical. Gloss over the arabs losing 5 wars, the dictatorships, the oppression of minorities and women in Arab countries, the 30 years of terrorist attacks by Arafat, the PLO and every other islamic fundamentalist group that has killed Americans, Europeans, Israelis, Jordanians, Lebanese, Palestinians, Africans and Russians and focus on the 'moral justifications' of eeeeeeevil zionist expansionism. Remember wars, islamic fundamentalism and terrorism don't destabilize the region everyone, Israeli expansionism does. Which is kinda like saying bank robbers don't threaten banks, the banks are the threat because they force bank robbers to rob them.

Israel is approximately 7000 sq miles, the surrounding Arabs control over 1,700,000 sq miles of territory...there's "zionist expansionism" in numbers.

 

[Mycroft]

Once again, if they created a Mexican state, it would indeed be an issue.

They already did that. I don't feel the urge to kill them for it.

You never did answer my question; should I kill my Pakistani home-buyer? After all, from a certian point of view, his home purchase could be seen as "land stealing".

 

[davefoc]

Question asked:

-- Post could not be deleted. Why? --

Three theories:
1. Your post contained something brilliant and the forum software is programmed not to let brilliant posts be deleted completely until an administrator comes and examines the situation.

2. The forum software has been set up to prevent people whose screen name starts with Q from deleting their posts.

3. No one without forum god priveleges can delete a post.

 

[Mycroft]

Originally posted by davefoc
With respect, I think AUP only thought that your common sense would kick in. Almost the only service that is universally expected of a political system by its population is that the borders be secured and that movement into the territory be restricted to immigration that is considered beneficial to the existing population. No population has ever considered unlimited immigration that would make it a minority in its own land as benficial.

There were some native Hawaiians who were not so threatened by the idea of "unlimited immigration" that made them a minority in their own land, but the majority knew better. It was terrible, there was a race war, refugees, and today the native Hawaiians live in miserable poverty, separated by a wall, their land cut up by security roads and checkpoints, and they are led by a homicidal maniac into suicidal resistance while priests of their native religion preach "death to the mainlanders!" This violence isn’t really their fault, every new hotel built is another provocation that reveals the "true goals" of the mainlanders goals to displace and ethnically cleanse the native population.

Oh, wait…I got caught up in AUP world for a moment. It’s funny how reading the rhetoric of hate can twist your perceptions and make you take certain concepts for granted that shouldn’t be. Like the idea that being a minority is inherently bad. It’s not, you know. It’s only bad when the minority is oppressed by the majority. The truth is there are and have been places where people of different cultures and backgrounds get along just fine. That’s the way it should be. Naïve, I know. The politics of race trumps all.

I know an internet auction site that always has little pieces of Hawaiian land for sale. Pretty land, quiet rural neighborhoods, and primitive plumbing which I think explains the low prices. Sometimes I think about buying some to build something on someday, but after reading these forums I’m sure that would be "land stealing" and any native Hawaiian would be perfectly justified in killing me for it. It doesn’t matter that the purchase would be legal and the land is empty at the moment, I’d still be displacing someone. It would be a land confiscation. Ethnic cleansing. Genocide. My God, I never knew thinking about building a house somewhere could be so evil.

Or maybe there is another way of looking at it. Maybe the native Hawaiians don’t see my purchase of Hawaiian land as a threat. Maybe the land I purchase is owned by a native Hawaiian, and he appreciates the money he gets and plans to use it to build his own house. Maybe when I build my house, the builder will employ many native Hawaiians, and that will help the local economy. Maybe when I move into that house, my children (grandchildren?) will play with the native Hawaiian children, and they will think the differences between them are less important than that they are friends and have fun together. Maybe my great-grandchildren would be native Hawaiians.

Maybe there is a way of looking at the world that is neither isolationist (fearful of immigrants and the changes they bring) nor conformist (insisting that everyone behave the same and adopt a homogenous culture in order to get along) that allows people who are different to be different and still coexist together in peace and respect. Maybe, with this different point of view, we could learn to see the immigrant as human first, and secondary attributes such as skin colour, religion, language or culture as being no more important or threatening than the colour of your eyes. Maybe, with this different point of view, you can understand how becoming a minority "in your own land" (as defined by race, not legal title) need not be met with fear and violence any more than being a minority brown-eyed person among blue-eyed people, a minority Christian among Buddhists, a minority tall person among short people or even a minority blanco among Spanish people.

 

[a_unique_person]

They already did that. I don't feel the urge to kill them for it.

You never did answer my question; should I kill my Pakistani home-buyer? After all, from a certian point of view, his home purchase could be seen as "land stealing".

Look, Mycroft, you know exactly what I mean. I know what I mean, everyone else knows what I mean. I can't make you admit you understand, any more than I can make you see what torture is. It is just you being deliberately petulant and difficult.

 

[E.J.Armstrong]

originally posted by Tony
That's all you do. You ignore the facts and prefer to argue from ignorance.

I notice that you have failed to support your claim with evidence. Perhaps you would care to do so at some point?

Is that right before you strap on a bomb and kill some infidels? I'd be more than happy to call you a muslim to your face based on your attitude.

Ah - the whiff of a Tony post. Ad hominems as a substitute for reason.

IMHO the following quotes from you demonstrates Islamophobia: -

'The isrealis are dealing with muslims. Genocide and persecution of minorities (especially jews) are holy pursuits in islam. They are bound by their love of allah to kill, and oppress the infidel.'

'But you ignore the fact that "extremism" is the status quo in islam.'

'But it is my duty as a human to oppose and condemn hateful ideologies and religions, so I'll keep opposing and speaking against Islam and Nazism (your two favorite ideals).'

 

[TragicMonkey]

Maybe there is a way of looking at the world that is neither isolationist (fearful of immigrants and the changes they bring) nor conformist (insisting that everyone behave the same and adopt a homogenous culture in order to get along) that allows people who are different to be different and still coexist together in peace and respect. Maybe, with this different point of view, we could learn to see the immigrant as human first, and secondary attributes such as skin colour, religion, language or culture as being no more important or threatening than the colour of your eyes. Maybe, with this different point of view, you can understand how becoming a minority "in your own land" (as defined by race, not legal title) need not be met with fear and violence any more than being a minority brown-eyed person among blue-eyed people, a minority Christian among Buddhists, a minority tall person among short people or even a minority blanco among Spanish people.

Nicely put.

I'd add that one benefit of a heterogenous population is the visual variety in potential sex partners. (I may be crass, but at least I'm honest.)