Isreal: Why was it created?

JeffB:

Regarding the idea of the Israelis being an extension of colonialism, that is most likely what many of the Arabs think. It is of course not true, but that's what they think... Only education can change that one - true education, using valid and true material, not the garbage they are currently spoon-fed by their governments/leaders.

Another part of the problem is that they look at their own lives/societies/cultures, and although there are pockets of success visible here and there, they are largely unable to pull themselves out of the poverty that the majority of them live in. And then they look at the Israelis and their prosperous society, and they fume... and their military defeats at the hands of a tiny Israeli state are a constant reminder of their near-total lack of actual power. The Israelis are a constant embarrasment to them.

As far as the historical claim goes - many Jews can trace their lineage back hundreds (thousands) of years to the area as well, so that's not too great of an argument. You need to keep in mind that Jews have always been there, until this century living side-by-side with the Arabs in relative peace. The only side that actually has a historical claim - in terms of ever having a state there - is the Israeli side. The people we now call Palestinians have lived under someone else's sovereignty continuously for a couple of thousand years - the Romans, the Caliphs, the Turks, the Brits. Their demand for a state of their own is a relatively new phenomenon.

One other comment there: until Jews started showing up in large numbers from Europe early this century, the area was virtually deserted. Not totally deserted - some Jews and some Arabs lived there - but it was pretty empty. Of course, the New World was not empty, but Palestine actually was. It was not until the Jews started developing successful agricultural enterprises that could feed a good deal of people that the land was even habitable by more than a handful of people. Until 1948, many Arabs were quite thankful for this, too...

We care about this conflict for a couple of reasons: 1) our Jewish lobby will not let us put it on the backburner, 2) guilt over the Holocaust, although that's not too strong anymore, 3) Israel is the only semi-Western democracy in the area, and we therefore have some degree of empathy for them, and most importantly 4) what happens there affects what happens elsewhere. I'm talking about oil here... The periodic flare-ups and wars over this issue negatively impact our economies, and we therefore have an interest in trying to keep the boiling to a minimum.

Personally, I'd rather just get off of oil and let them duke it out, but there's no time left for that anymore. They're going to duke it out anyway, regardless of what we want.

 

Regarding the idea of the Israelis being an extension of colonialism, that is most likely what many of the Arabs think. It is of course not true, but that's what they think... Only education can change that one - true education, using valid and true material, not the garbage they are currently spoon-fed by their governments/leaders.

The Palestinians can make that same claim against the Israelis needing true education. You keep saying that the Palestinians have always been undersomeone's dominion. Well, in their view the Israeli state may simply be the continuation of that dominion. Now the Palestinians may want to end the cycle of dominion. Their problem may not be with Jews so much as it is with Israelis. The newness of the desire for independence is irrelevant. The fact that they feel it and the reasons why is what matters.

Another part of the problem is that they look at their own lives/societies/cultures, and although there are pockets of success visible here and there, they are largely unable to pull themselves out of the poverty that the majority of them live in. And then they look at the Israelis and their prosperous society, and they fume... and their military defeats at the hands of a tiny Israeli state are a constant reminder of their near-total lack of actual power. The Israelis are a constant embarrasment to them.

It could also be that they look at the "success" of the Israelis and compare that to their experiences being mistreated, abused, having their land annexed, having their homes bulldozed, being forced to live in deplorable conditions, etc. and get absolutely pissed. The Israelis may not be an "embarassment" to them so much as the reason for their subjugation. To say that the "success" of the Israelis "embarasses" them is a value judgement about what constitutes success, embrassment and about what the Palestinians actually value in life. Palestinians may not care about Israeli liberty so much as the Palestinians care about Palestinian liberty. Some Palestinians may feel, based on their experiences with Israel and Israeli's--not what some "leader" is purported to tell them--that the Israelis are the modern colonial power in the region.

As far as military domination goes: it is easy to kick ass when the US gives you billions of dollars for military development, allows you to develop a nuclear arsenal and at the same time, limits the military growth of your enemies.

As far as the historical claim goes - many Jews can trace their lineage back hundreds (thousands) of years to the area as well, so that's not too great of an argument. You need to keep in mind that Jews have always been there, until this century living side-by-side with the Arabs in relative peace. The only side that actually has a historical claim - in terms of ever having a state there - is the Israeli side. The people we now call Palestinians have lived under someone else's sovereignty continuously for a couple of thousand years - the Romans, the Caliphs, the Turks, the Brits. Their demand for a state of their own is a relatively new phenomenon.

I agree to an extent. I think both sides have legitimate historical claims as humans regardless of ethnicity and religion. I also beleive that any idiot off the street can make an historical claim on someone else' land. My point: historical claims don't mean schit. They just tend to justify today's unjustifiable actions.

Palestinian nationalism, like the nationalism of most groups of people under colonial domination, is a relatively new phenomenon. The newness of it doesn't matter as much as the reasons that said nationalism exists--such as 3rd class citizenship--and the stated goals--of said nationalist movement.

With that said. The Israelis had no power to excercise any such historical claim without the power of the Western Nations. I do not beleive Israel could continue to exist if not for the financial/military support and threat of intervention of the United States--that is, I think the Arab nations would have already defeated the Israelis if the US wasn't constantly giving Israel funding and posing the threat of military action.

One other comment there: until Jews started showing up in large numbers from Europe early this century, the area was virtually deserted. Not totally deserted - some Jews and some Arabs lived there - but it was pretty empty. Of course, the New World was not empty, but Palestine actually was. It was not until the Jews started developing successful agricultural enterprises that could feed a good deal of people that the land was even habitable by more than a handful of people. Until 1948, many Arabs were quite thankful for this, too...

I won't dispute this except to say that maybe that agricultural and economic develop by the Israelis was followed by an increase in population and a land expansion/land grab. The Arabs may be pissed not because Israel grew food and got rich but because of the increasing Israeli demand for more land/room with which to continue growing food and getting rich. The growth of the Israeli state has displaced many people and threatened the borders/security of other states.

We care about this conflict for a couple of reasons: 1) our Jewish lobby will not let us put it on the backburner, 2) guilt over the Holocaust, although that's not too strong anymore, 3) Israel is the only semi-Western democracy in the area, and we therefore have some degree of empathy for them, and most importantly 4) what happens there affects what happens elsewhere. I'm talking about oil here... The periodic flare-ups and wars over this issue negatively impact our economies, and we therefore have an interest in trying to keep the boiling to a minimum.

Personally, I'd rather just get off of oil and let them duke it out, but there's no time left for that anymore. They're going to duke it out anyway, regardless of what we want.

I agree completely. Those reasons are leading us down the slippery slope of ethnic conflict. This whole conflict is continuing to nationalize the Arab countries around Islam for one common goal--to get rid of Israel. I don't want the US getting involved in such a conflict on behalf of the oil and Jewish lobbies when it would be more efficient to just develop non-fossil fuel based energy sources.

 

JeffB:

Of course they do want to end that "cycle of dominion" (I like that phrase), and justifiably so. Everyone (me included) except for a tiny minority of Israeli hard liners believes that they are entitled to a state of their own, so the problem here is not that their hopes for a state are unrealistic. The problem is, frankly, that every time they are offered a state they start sending suicide bombers that destroy whatever negotiations or good faith got them that offer...

What many don't seem to understand about the Israelis is that the large majority of them don't want to occupy the territories - most of them would much rather live side by side with a responsible and nonhostile Palestinian state. They have repeatedly tried to pull out of the territories, and have repeatedly offered the Palestinians a state, but there is a significant number of Palestinians - not all, but almost certainly a majority now - who want not just a Palestinian state, but a "return to 1948 borders" (meaning the destruction of Israel). They are not exactly making it easy for the Israelis to give them what they supposedly want.

To most of them, there is no difference. An American or French Jew is just as bad as an Israeli Jew. We have two decades of anti-Semitic programming conducted not just by Palestinian leaders but by every Arabic government in the region to thank for that. They are right on a par with the Nazis in their anti-Semitism.

Of course those Israeli actions don't exactly help (that's an understatement), but if this were the sole reason then none of the Arabs in other states would have any reason to hate the Israelis. Clearly, that is not the only reason for Arab anger at the Israelis - the Israelis are an embarassment to all of them.

That is not to say that the Israelis should not stop what they're doing, though - the settlements should go, and the bulldozers must stop in their tracks. But that is not the only reason the Israelis are hated; they were hated long before the settlements began and the bulldozers started plowing down neighborhoods anyway - long before. The reasons are far deeper than that.

BTW, the Israelis have never annexed any Arab territory. That's a legal distinction that is totally different from occupation. If they annexed the territory, then they'd have to either offer the Palestinians Israeli citizenship or chase them out...

We give more money to the Arabs for military purposes than we do to the Israelis - that is a fact. During the Cold War the Soviet Union funneled prodigious amounts of military hardware, military advisors, and military/financial aid into the various Arab governments - far, far more than we pumped into Israel - so the idea that the Arabs were left in the cold militarily in the past is a myth.

Also, the Israelis are the only ME state that has a significant indigenous defense industry; they actually make much of their own military hardware. What they don't already make on their own, they are quite capable of making on their own if we stopped supplying them with money tomorrow, one reason why cutting them off would be totally pointless and just remove their incentive to do what we ask of them...

But the Arabs were never beaten on the battlefield because the Israelis had more tanks or aircraft than them, or even better tanks and aircraft (Soviet equipment is not as inferior as commonly thought to what the Israelis have traditionally fielded). They were beaten on the battlefield because the Israelis had superior training and superior tactics, not because they had superior equipment, or more of it.

And they got the bomb from France. Another commonly held myth...

Actually, I agree. Personally, I couldn't care less about historical claims; what matters is who lives there now, IMO. But no one's listening to me...

This is probably true, although the pre-1948 Haganah was probably the most fierce fighting force in the area, so who's to say what would have happened... But probably true.

This is really two different issues...

Firstly, it is probably true that in the '48 and '56 wars, the Israelis would not have survived without US aid. But personally I think that should be viewed in the larger context of the Cold War, because the Arab nations were being supplied with massive amounts of military hardware and funds on the opposing side, and we simply could not allow the Soviets to gain de facto control of what was then almost the entire world's oil resources. There's a reason we gave the Israelis aid during the Cold War that had absolutely nothing to do with us actually liking the Israelis.

As for now, the Israelis would have no problem defeating every single Arab army in the region without a single penny or bullet coming from the US. As I said, they have a very large indigenous defense industry, and now produce much of their own hardware...

Secondly, we have never intervened or even threatened to intervene in any Arab-Israeli war. We did make it clear during the Cold War that if the USSR actively participated on the Arabs' side then we would intervene, but otherwise we have always made it clear that we would not intervene under any circumstances. Even in the '73 war when the Israelis were about to lose the war and be overrun we made it clear that we would not intervene.

The "land grab" didn't start until the 1967 war, and the settlements didn't start until after that. As for territory captured in wartime, the Israelis have shown a great willingness to give it back under the right conditions - insurance for peace. They gave the Sinai back to Egypt in exchange for peace, for example.

Again, the Arabs were pissed long before the land grab.

The ethnic conflict has been going on for over 50 years - this is nothing new. Just the latest flare-up. And the Arabs have been rallying to the cry of "Death to Israel" for quite some time - that is also not new.

We won't get involved, BTW - we will sit back and observe from the sidelines, and occasionally call "Foul!" when someone does something nasaty. But we won't do anything - no one except for the Arabs and Israelis really can. The Israelis are quite capable of handling the situation themselves anyway, if we take the leash of. Or if the Arabs attack and force everybody's hands.

 

rimbaud -

I just noticed your last comment. Personally - and this might surprise you - I am all for a One-World government. I'm not scared of the "black helicopters from the UN"... Of course, I want that government to safeguard our existing values, just like any good tribalist would.

No countries = no wars (only nationalistic terrorism fueled by nostalgia). That is a dream of mine, believe it or not... But we're delving into the realm of future-fi, and totally ignoring the reality of the tribalistic nature of mankind.

Wanna know why wars still happen in this day and "enlightened" age? Because we're all still tribalists at heart. It's just more apparent in Third World countries/societies. Us 'civilized' folk hide it very well.

One day, maybe...

 

RR:

Actually, the influx of European Jews started around the turn of the century. It's little known, but most Jews there prior to the first decade of this century were actually Jews of Arab descent - ethnically they were Arabs. When the Europeans started coming in that decade things started changing...

White people started showing up in numbers that were previously negligible. Arab Jews of course look like Arabs, but these new people looked like... well, Europeans. And as soon as they started showing up, that's also when the Arab population in the area started blooming. There are a number of reasons for that, but the main one was that the Europeans brought agricultural technology from Europe that allowed them to develop food sources that could feed large numbers of people.

Where there's food in a desert, that's where people are going to congregate.

There were some flare-ups along ethnic lines during the period from the late 1890s (when the European Jews started arriving) to 1945, but for the most part the Jews and Arabs lived together in relative peace. There were fights... But for the most part it was "kosher" - nothing like we've seen since '48. The Arabs needed the food in order to multiply, and the Jews needed nonhostile neighbors so that they could get water...

What no Arab ever wanted, though, was for the Israelis to get control of Jerusalem's holy sites. The Dome of the Rock is Islam's second most holy site, I believe... The 1948 boundaries put that in peril - one reason the Arabs reacted. The dome is also the site of Solomon's first temple, so the Jews wanted it too... Religion is relevant here.

(It should be noted that all Jerusalem Islamic, Christian, and Jewish holy sites have been under the thoughtful care of a particular muslim family for a very long time, whose current leader would make a great candidate for leadership of the Palestinians in a post-Arafat era)

On the whole you're probably right in your insinuation - the Arabs didn't like all those white folks moving in on their territory. That was probably part of it. But there is much more to the story than that, and that is probably a minor reason for the hatred...

 

Many Palestinians see no point in being offered a Palestinian state in title only. Offers of such a state so far have been lacking in the area of self-determination. Many Palestinians don't want a state if they can't have true self-government in which they can protect their own borders and govern their own international relationships without Israeli oversight. The problem, as I see it, is that the offers of a state have been too little--though one should expect the Israelis to acquiesce to Palestinian demands--and that their is no united Palestinian front. Arafat doesn't have absolute control over "his" people. Whenever he has come close to reaching an agreement, some hardliner with nothing to lose does a suicide bombing. Sure, Arafat could be ordering these acts. However, it is just as likely that he is a leader in name only and is barely holding on to is leadership through a delicate balancing act in which he must please both the Israeli's and the hardline Palestinians.

I agree. I think the actions of the Israeli state not only fail to represent the wishes of the Israeli citizenship, but in many instances contradict the wishes of the citizenry. At the same time, one cannot expect the militancy of the Palestinians to subside as long as they are treated as 3rd class citizens and subjected to abject poverty at the hands of the Israeli state.

I agree. I think that for the most part Jew=Israeli. However, I used the distinction in my language to try and illustrate the possible reality that Palestinian anger at the Israeli state is misdirected as anti-semitism. Just as many Arabs have come to hate Jews, many also feel that the Israeli anti-Arab actions mirror the actions of the Nazis.

I don't see how and you fail to explain how the Israelis are an embarassment to anyone. Many Arab nations view Israel as an extension of Western power, which Israel is to an extent. To some, the Western powers are most able to maintain their presence in the area through Israel. Whether or not this is true isn't as important as whether Arab nations hold this view point. In my opinion this whole mess is not about embarassment (whatever constitutes that?) but is instead a classic post-colonial conflict which happens to threaten the world's richest oil reserves.

That is exactly my argument. This form of ethic conflict is not uncommon and is very related to the colonial legacy of the region in which borders were sloppily drawn and specific state formations were forced on regions, often reinforcing and recreating relationships of domination. In this case, the Israelis have power, and the Palestinians don't. Of course it gets more complex than this, but I do believe that this is colonial residue.

Many Arab nations feel that as the US was a puppeteer and enemy in the region during the Cold War, the US continues to play that role today. Israel is often seen as an extension of that old power relationship. Some Arab states were on the losing side and thus may harbor resentment. Some may still yet resent a US presence which in their eyes allows Israel to build a powerful indigenous defense industry while at the same time limiting--through trade embargoes, the CIA, etc.--the development of the same defense industries in some Arab states, especially those states that don't acquiesce to US demands.

Some states consider training to be more important and just as expensive a resource as the bullets used to kill. Some Arab nations contend that the training and support of the US has helped give Israel the edge. Regardless of whether that is true, what is even more important is whether Arab nations feel US support gives Israelis the edge, today.

I agree.

They do produce much of their own hardware, but they still require billions of dollars in US aid to help sutain their defense industry and the economy needed to sustain said industry. Whether directly or indirectly, US aid helps their military might. Moreover, some Arab states may see a blatant contradiction in that many aggressive ME states have been met with trade restrictions while Israel has not had to suffer from such restrictions in recent years.

I disagree here in that today there is Arab concern that the US may intervene on behalf of Israel in the instance of an Arab-Israeli war. This concern has only heightened since 9/11 due to increased American citizen support for military action and strong stance of our government against those who harbor terrorists.

As an aside I also feel the Israeli state has been using 9/11 and the harsh US position against terrorism in any form to come out even further on top in any peace deal with the Palestinians.

The Israeli's conditions often are often considered too much for any state to give up. "Insurance for peace" is a broad term and in a peace agreement must be outlined clearly. The fine points are often considered too much of a loss for some of Israel's enemies to bear.

Of course the Arabs were pissed before all this, as they should have been. Today's Israel, just like today's Arab states are post-colonial constructions forced upon the local people. The development of these states were quick and relatively sudden--meaning that a lot of people were unfairly put into conflict with each other based on how the "super powers" wanted to divy up the ME.

I don't beleive this is something new. I also don't beleive there are any innocent parties in this mess. I also think that both sides have very legitimate reasons to be angry and to want to die for their respective causes. Above and beyond all this, I do beleive that as long as the Palestinians are and feel treated as 3rd class citizens by the Israeli state, this conflict will continue to grow. Israel is tossing out the baby with the bath water. You can't stop hardline militants. Not even Arafat can. If the hardliners want to suicide bomb, they will. The most important thing is converting the more liberal and reasonable Palestinians while dealing with the militants as opposed to letting the militants dictate to course of relations.

I hope so.

treeman, I enjoy reading your posts. We agree on most issues in this subject. Where we differ is on how we understand the Palestinian viewpoint. I just want to make it clear that I feel that regardless of who started what however many years ago, this conflict is mostly being waged by a new generation (at ground level) that had little to do with the original conflict and what matters most right now is easing understanding both sides, getting both sides to understand each other, get both sides to ease nationalistic sentiments and finding some middle ground despite the tacticts of the extremists.

 

RR, great question!!

Though I have failed to articulate that point, that point about European immigrants is central to my argument. I don't think this is about how two peacefully co-existing ethnic groups grew to hate each other as much it is about how a bunch of nationalistic outsiders moved into an area--with the help of other more powerful outsiders--and screwed up the whole peaceful co-existence.

 

Why don't the UN just make those Holy places off limits to everybody, and just make it a tourist site. Both the Palestines, and Jews can split profits. It's all about the Benjamins, or all about the goats and camels.

 

JeffB:

Had the Israelis offered them states that were actually controlled by the Israeli govt, this would be true. What you have just described here is even less than what they have now: autonomy. The Israelis gave the autonomy by creating the Palestinian National Authority during the Oslo process. The Palestinians have had control over the Palestinian areas - or at least, the opportunity to take control - for the past 9 years. They have utterly failed to do so.

The end goal is to have a *responsible* Palestinian government - one that will act to curb the terrorism we are seeing today. What we have now is a Palestinian semi-state that is using all of the tools of government to *promote* terrorism against Israel. That is totally unacceptable, and not at all conducive to peace talks, to say the least.

Uh... Are you trying to make excuses for Arafat? He is a *king* in the occupied territories - especially now that everyone knows that he is willing to attack the Sharon government.

He could stop the attacks with the snap of a finger, and everyone knows it.

BTW, when was the last PNA election?

This sounds like something haven might say...

The Israeli citizenry is *totally outraged* at the Passover attack. They are f*ing fed up with Arafat's doublespeak, and they cannot sustain these types of casualties. Any sympathy Israelis had for the Palestinian cause evaporated two days ago. The tanks are rolling now, and nothing Yassir Arafat says will turn them back this time.

They're about to become 4th Class citizens (odd concept, as they are 'citizens' of no state on Earth).

What in the hell do you expect the Israelis to do? They have suffered the equivalent of 8 WTC attacks in the past year, proportionally speaking.

Ahh... The "the Israelis made them like this" argument. The logic works equally well for any US convict with the "society made me like this" argument. Bull****.

Ever heard of the concept of 'personal responsibility for one's own actions'? It is nonexistant in the Arab world.

As for people thinking that the Isrtaelis are acting like Nazis - as I have said before, people will believe whatever lie they are repeatedly told. The popular theme here is that the Israelis are acting like Nazis... One very important thing that reinforcing that theme does is remove the possibility of the Arabs actually being the Nazi thugs.

If repeated enough times in the press, on campuses, etc - then people will start to believe it. It is very effective. End result: everyone overlooks the Arabs' vicious (and loud) anti-Semitism, while everyone notices the supposed 'fascist' actions of the Israelis. All the while ignoring the fact that a 52-year long war has forced the Israelis to take many (not all, though) of the acytions that they are now taking...

Few recognize that most - not all, but most - of the actions that Israel is taking in the Palestinian territories are relatively common wartime actions. Some of which we conducted ourselves in both Germany and Japan.

They are an embarrassment to everyone because they can grow a plant, while others cannot. They can produce a working gun, and others cannot. They can feed their people without riots, and others cannot. They can turn investment capital into more investment capital, and others cannot. They can master global banking systems in order to turn a profit, and others cannot. They can attract investment - even in the face of terrorism - and others cannot.

They can actually build a sustainable society, and others - meaning Arabic societies - cannot. Just take a quick look at any economic, demographic, ethnographic, or sociological data and you will see a *huge* divide there.

The Arabs are quite aware of this.

'Colonial residue'... I do like your phraseology!

Yes, colonialism has something to do with it, but only insofar as perceptions go. The Arabs perceive that colonialism is to blame, but they totally refuse to admit the possibility that they themselves are to blame since the actual disappearance of colonial powers from their midst. Therefore, they must continue blaming the "colonial powers", as they see it (mainly us - curiously the Brits are absent from blame).

Their perception of the situation is totally wrong, and we should certainly do more to change that. What we cannot change, however, is their propensity for denial - it is a universal constant among Arabic cultures that they absolutely refuse to take any personal responsibility for any actions that someone else deems as "wrong". Notice how the suicide bombings are routinely presented as just "resistance, the only way possible, against the aggressor Israel"?

This would not be possible in a Western society - where personal responsibility is not equated with "martyrdom".

In practice, the only state that this applies to is Syria. Every other Arab state has either A) made peace with Israel (and gained American money and military technology because of it), or b) not made peace with Israel (and gained American money and military technology for other reasons)...

I am of course excluding Iran and Iraq from this particular consideration.

But the bottom line is this: no Arab industry has *ever* been able to produce reliable military equipment to this date. Egypt is on the verge of being able to do so - with our help. Iraq has had a number of successful modifications to advanced weaponry, but the sanctions have disrupted (killed) that particular (armor, mainly) industry. Other than that, none of the Arab nations have a clue as to how to really make - mass produce - effective wartime weaponry.

Israel is most certainly alone in that category in the ME.

Uh... Don't hold your breath. Really - don't. We will never intervene on Israel's behalf in any war. To think otherwise is to... well, misunderstand a whole slew of American interests, obligations, and commitments. We will never intervene militarily, that I promise you.

I agree. 100%.

Hey man, you don't know how much I appreciate getting to post intelligently on this subject with the time I have left without having to resort to emotional, childish "tit-for-tats"... I actually do appreciate intelligent dialogue like this, it just seems like lately I can't find anyone to take the other side.

We are actually pretty close on the "Palestinian viewpoint" - in that we both think that the Palestinians should have a state, the Israelis should get the f* out and take the settlements with them, they should stop bulldozing homes, etc. I guess where we differ is really on the Arab psychology bit. I am convinced that they are not really interested in peace, while you apparently are.

What we think doesn't really matter anyway. What matters now - right this minute, and it's the only way to prevent what is coming - is that the Arabs can convince the Israelis that they're genuinely interested in peace. If they fail to do that... Then expect total war. And I don't mean just with the Palestinians.

We'll see.

 

I am not for a one-world government, only the abolition of mindset and countries. One-wrod gov't only exacerbates problems that already exist with the larger countries, such as ours - break it up.

Sure, humans always screws dreams up. Every theary has holes and they usually lie on the level of humans and their interaction/enactment in the system. As far as war, the world should learn from the example of Costa Rica. Fat chance...oh well, none of my political/economic dreams will ever come to fruition...might as well set sights high.

Problemmatical statement. Another problem with "Third World" countries is that First World nations have historically used their countries as playgrounds, open treasure chests, and as helpless women to be raped. There have been non-aggressive tribes throughout the world and throughout history. Their way has just never been the popular way, despite always existing.

 

People who say the Israelis are acting like Nazis crack me up.

I haven't seen one shred of evidence that the Israelis are cooking live Palestinians in ovens until they die, working them to death by building munitions in concentration camps, or performing ungodly and horrific medical "experiments" on them like "Dr." Mengele.

Those who compare the Israelis to the Nazis need to brush up on their World War II history just a wee little bit. It insults the intelligence of those of us who have relatives who died at the hands of the Nazis during World War II. I do not condone what the Israelis are doing, because violence only begets violence. However, comparing the Israelis to the Nazis is a giant stretch of the imagination.

 

I unfortunately didn't get to post yesterday and now the conversation is so far along! It doesn't look like it needs any help from me, of course, but there was just one element of the history I wanted to bring to attention, which is about the original re-colonization of the area.

As has been pointed out, Jews began returning to the area in the late 19th century. Part of the reason is that the area was so deserted at the time. The Turks were reforming their land ownership and, in an effort to recivilize the area, offered land to colonists who would come and make something of the area. It was very similar to the program the Mexicans employed with Texas a half-century before with equally disastrous results. The folks who took advantage of the offer were people who were rich in monetary wealth and in human capital (knowing how to farm, how to use markets and technology, how to run a business, how to bank, etc). But, they were people who were not native to the area. They were European Jews and Russian Jews who brought with them the profits of living in a rich society. And, as such, they felt no loyalty to the government of the country they were living in (just as Sam Houston and the rest of our boys didn't feel much loyalty to the Mexican government).

 

rimbaud:

Are you an Anarchist? A Libertarian? The latter seems extremely unlikely. What political label would you apply to yourself?

(I realize that none of the current labels will likely fit, Just asking what you would approximate out of pure curiosity)

JV: Good Take.

 

Damn, that is very hard for me to do. I am closer to the original definition of libertarian than its modern "adaptation," sure, but that doesn't really cover me. Hmmm...how does Federalist-Syndicalist-Socialist-free marketist-utilitarian-cultural educationist sound? Now see why I hate "liberal" - it is just not as sexy, lol.

It is hard because I have no one theory or framework that I try to apply to everything, it truly is a combination/hybrid of many influences (not all of which fit into my stupid "ist" chain). I am not utopian, I just look for minimizing abuse - internal to and as a result of the system. I believe in government (misconception with anarcho-whatevers), but a different structure than what we have...so, that will have to suffice, lest I go overboard and waste too much space with "rimmy's political platform."