[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
kaaleppi wrote:
It is a bit ironic that it is Israel that has a modern day Warsaw ghetto on its turf. Nothing gets legally in or out.
“Nazi JOOOOOOOOS!”
Keep the projection coming. [/quote]
The Palestinians have nice neighbors, compared to the neighbors Hong Kong had for decades.
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
kaaleppi wrote:
It is a bit ironic that it is Israel that has a modern day Warsaw ghetto on its turf. Nothing gets legally in or out.
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
It is a bit ironic that it is Israel that has a modern day Warsaw ghetto on its turf. Nothing gets legally in or out.
[/quote]
A convenient analogy, and not true.
In all their years of national aspiration, who “gave” the Palestinians even an inch of ground to call their own? Not the Mameluks, not he Ottomans, not the British (although they tried), not the Jordanians or the Egyptians when they had 19 years of chances.
Nope. The answer is Israel. In 2005, the Israeli occupation/administration was withdrawn, its citizens evacuated, the agricultural infrastructure was left behind (to be destroyed by the Gazans). The Palestinian Authority was to be in charge; the borders were not shut in blockade. Had it worked, the West Bank would have been next.
Over and over on this site, it has been claimed that Hamas won an election. But Hamas did not win an election to assume governance; it won seats in parliament, it rejected negotiations with Fatah, and its thugs seized the territory as a launching pad for rockets and violence. Fatah sympathizers were murdered and some were driven out. Israel closed borders to prevent the further importation of weapons, and endured near constant bombardment nevertheless.
Now, you may not like this narrative, but it is certainly closer to the truth than the clumsy Warsaw ghetto analogy.
And one more thought. It is conspicuously convenient for Europeans–and non-European apologists as well–to analogize Israel and Nazi Germany. Doing so allows them to engage in historical amnesia and self-forgiveness.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
kaaleppi wrote:
It is a bit ironic that it is Israel that has a modern day Warsaw ghetto on its turf. Nothing gets legally in or out.
A convenient analogy, and not true.
In all their years of national aspiration, who “gave” the Palestinians even an inch of ground to call their own? Not the Mameluks, not he Ottomans, not the British (although they tried), not the Jordanians or the Egyptians when they had 19 years of chances.
Nope. The answer is Israel. In 2005, the Israeli occupation/administration was withdrawn, its citizens evacuated, the agricultural infrastructure was left behind (to be destroyed by the Gazans). The Palestinian Authority was to be in charge; the borders were not shut in blockade. Had it worked, the West Bank would have been next.
[/quote]
Come on now. Don’t pretend that was done out of some blessed Israeli benevolence. They did it because the strategic rationale for continuing to hold Gaza was nonexistent. It was done by Sharon for goodness sake (war criminal).
Very true. Although Hamas was quite likely pre-empting Fatah before Dahlan’s gang pulled off the same stunt:
"In recent months, President Bush has repeatedly stated that the last great ambition of his presidency is to broker a deal that would create a viable Palestinian state and bring peace to the Holy Land. ?People say, ?Do you think it?s possible, during your presidency?? ? he told an audience in Jerusalem on January 9. ?And the answer is: I?m very hopeful.?
The next day, in the West Bank capital of Ramallah, Bush acknowledged that there was a rather large obstacle standing in the way of this goal: Hamas?s complete control of Gaza, home to some 1.5 million Palestinians, where it seized power in a bloody coup d?état in June 2007. Almost every day, militants fire rockets from Gaza into neighboring Israeli towns, and President Abbas is powerless to stop them. His authority is limited to the West Bank.
It?s ?a tough situation,? Bush admitted. ?I don?t know whether you can solve it in a year or not.? What Bush neglected to mention was his own role in creating this mess.
According to Dahlan, it was Bush who had pushed legislative elections in the Palestinian territories in January 2006, despite warnings that Fatah was not ready. After Hamas?whose 1988 charter committed it to the goal of driving Israel into the sea?won control of the parliament, Bush made another, deadlier miscalculation.
Vanity Fair has obtained confidential documents, since corroborated by sources in the U.S. and Palestine, which lay bare a covert initiative, approved by Bush and implemented by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Deputy National Security Adviser Elliott Abrams, to provoke a Palestinian civil war. The plan was for forces led by Dahlan, and armed with new weapons supplied at America?s behest, to give Fatah the muscle it needed to remove the democratically elected Hamas-led government from power. (The State Department declined to comment.)
But the secret plan backfired, resulting in a further setback for American foreign policy under Bush. Instead of driving its enemies out of power, the U.S.-backed Fatah fighters inadvertently provoked Hamas to seize total control of Gaza.
Some sources call the scheme ?Iran-contra 2.0,? recalling that Abrams was convicted (and later pardoned) for withholding information from Congress during the original Iran-contra scandal under President Reagan. There are echoes of other past misadventures as well: the C.I.A.?s 1953 ouster of an elected prime minister in Iran, which set the stage for the 1979 Islamic revolution there; the aborted 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion, which gave Fidel Castro an excuse to solidify his hold on Cuba; and the contemporary tragedy in Iraq.
Within the Bush administration, the Palestinian policy set off a furious debate. One of its critics is David Wurmser, the avowed neoconservative, who resigned as Vice President Dick Cheney?s chief Middle East adviser in July 2007, a month after the Gaza coup.
Wurmser accuses the Bush administration of ?engaging in a dirty war in an effort to provide a corrupt dictatorship [led by Abbas] with victory.? He believes that Hamas had no intention of taking Gaza until Fatah forced its hand. ?It looks to me that what happened wasn?t so much a coup by Hamas but an attempted coup by Fatah that was pre-empted before it could happen,? Wurmser says."
[quote]
Now, you may not like this narrative, but it is certainly closer to the truth than the clumsy Warsaw ghetto analogy.
And one more thought. It is conspicuously convenient for Europeans–and non-European apologists as well–to analogize Israel and Nazi Germany. Doing so allows them to engage in historical amnesia and self-forgiveness.
(Finland excepted, of course.)[/quote]
Absolutely. It’s a terrible analogy, and as much as the Israelis have made the Palestinians suffer (and yes, vice versa obviously), it can’t be compared to extermination camps. But to appartheid? Sure.
[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
kaaleppi wrote:
It is a bit ironic that it is Israel that has a modern day Warsaw ghetto on its turf. Nothing gets legally in or out.
A convenient analogy, and not true.
In all their years of national aspiration, who “gave” the Palestinians even an inch of ground to call their own? Not the Mameluks, not he Ottomans, not the British (although they tried), not the Jordanians or the Egyptians when they had 19 years of chances.
Nope. The answer is Israel. In 2005, the Israeli occupation/administration was withdrawn, its citizens evacuated, the agricultural infrastructure was left behind (to be destroyed by the Gazans). The Palestinian Authority was to be in charge; the borders were not shut in blockade. Had it worked, the West Bank would have been next.
Come on now. Don’t pretend that was done out of some blessed Israeli benevolence. They did it because the strategic rationale for continuing to hold Gaza was nonexistent. It was done by Sharon for goodness sake (war criminal).
[/quote]
I pretended nothing. I recite a narrative. There were more than one reason for the withdrawal. You have offered just one. Sharon–a complex figure, but I don’t see on trial any of the true perpetrators of the crime in Lebanon. Sharon evacuated Gaza for a number of reasons as well: unnecessary, indefensible, “a bridge too far,” and maybe, just maybe, accomplish the hat trick: relieve pressure on him to establish a second state, and at the same time, divide Palestinian leadership.
Ah, yes…
[quote]
Vanity Fair has obtained confidential documents, since corroborated by sources in the U.S. and Palestine, which lay bare a covert initiative, approved by Bush and implemented by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Deputy National Security Adviser Elliott Abrams, to provoke a Palestinian civil war. The plan was for forces led by Dahlan, and armed with new weapons supplied at America?s behest, to give Fatah the muscle it needed to remove the democratically elected Hamas-led government from power. (The State Department declined to comment.)
But the secret plan backfired, resulting in a further setback for American foreign policy under Bush. Instead of driving its enemies out of power, the U.S.-backed Fatah fighters inadvertently provoked Hamas to seize total control of Gaza.
Some sources call the scheme ?Iran-contra 2.0,? recalling that Abrams was convicted (and later pardoned) for withholding information from Congress during the original Iran-contra scandal under President Reagan. There are echoes of other past misadventures as well: the C.I.A.?s 1953 ouster of an elected prime minister in Iran, which set the stage for the 1979 Islamic revolution there; the aborted 1961 Bay of Pigs invasion, which gave Fidel Castro an excuse to solidify his hold on Cuba; and the contemporary tragedy in Iraq.
Within the Bush administration, the Palestinian policy set off a furious debate. One of its critics is David Wurmser, the avowed neoconservative, who resigned as Vice President Dick Cheney?s chief Middle East adviser in July 2007, a month after the Gaza coup.
Wurmser accuses the Bush administration of ?engaging in a dirty war in an effort to provide a corrupt dictatorship [led by Abbas] with victory.? He believes that Hamas had no intention of taking Gaza until Fatah forced its hand. ?It looks to me that what happened wasn?t so much a coup by Hamas but an attempted coup by Fatah that was pre-empted before it could happen,? Wurmser says."
Now, you may not like this narrative, but it is certainly closer to the truth than the clumsy Warsaw ghetto analogy.
And one more thought. It is conspicuously convenient for Europeans–and non-European apologists as well–to analogize Israel and Nazi Germany. Doing so allows them to engage in historical amnesia and self-forgiveness.
(Finland excepted, of course.)
Absolutely. It’s a terrible analogy, and as much as the Israelis have made the Palestinians suffer (and yes, vice versa obviously), it can’t be compared to extermination camps. But to appartheid? Sure.[/quote]
Apartheid? That term sure pushes some predictable buttons, eh? And is it historically fair, or merely prejudicial? Inasmuch as Israel has caused suffering, do not Arab nations, UNRW and the recalcitrant Palestinian leadership–always ready to extend and exploit the suffering of its own–play some part?
I’m gonna put this up front since it answers the thread title directly: I care about the Palestinians because they were driven off their land at gunpoint and deserve more than the Israelis have been willing to give them.
@ the last 2 posters: It’s not as bad as apartheid, but it is pretty goddamn bad.
re: plans to overthrow hamas: Why does the US only succeed at covertly overthrowing good governments and fail at overthrowing bad ones? Woulda been great to get rid of Hamas.
Here’s a pair of analogies to chew on:
Palestinians : Israelis :: Native-Americans : European colonists
in a few years its gonna be
Palestinians : Israelis :: Americans : Mexicans
(If of course Mexican immigrants decide to establish a state in the middle of the Southwest and carve off a huge chunk of the USA the way the Israelis did in Palestine)
I don’t see how it’s possible to lack sympathy for the Palestinians. They were there first. They were shoved off their land at gunpoint.
The Israelis have a right to a state in Palestine by virtue of their unfettered immigration there during British rule (not due to any historical claim to the land) but the Palestinians also have a right to the land (due to being 60% or so of the population in '48), and not to be forced out at gunpoint or otherwise. The refugees cared for by the demonized UNRW had to come from somewhere; and that place was the land they were driven off of.
On the one hand the Palestinans have blocked peace literally at every turn, but on the other, peace requires them to legitimize their own victimization. They’ve gotten a raw deal from the Ottomans to the British and now the Israelis lording it over them. I don’t think they should be pushing for the destruction of Israel or any of that nonsense, but a fair 2 state solution requires more than the Israelis have been willing to give (at least recently). They probably should have just taken the first UN partition plan and called it a day then.
[quote]Magarhe wrote:
Dude, the Mexicans were there FIRST. You carved a chunk out of THEIR land. In a cowardly way I might add, massacre during siesta time
So many people here haven’t got a clue. Good thing your voice, vote and opinion don’t count to anything.
[/quote]
The Aztecs/Mayans etc. were there first. The Mexicans killed/incorporated those civilizations and their land, and then the same thing happened to them in turn. This is not to say it was right, but the harm caused by ousting people from their lands far outweighs the benefit gained by redressing some vague centuries old wrong. Time heals all wounds, and after a certain time period the status quo is more just than justice.
To claim that Mexico has a right to lands it lost a hundred years ago is beyond idiotic. Just as it’s idiotic for Israelis to claim a right to the land of Palestine due to their presence there thousands of years ago (they do have a right to the land but that’s not why) Of course if Mexicans immigrated in vast numbers to the US the way Israelis did to Palestine, they’d have the right of self determination–the right to set up their own state the same way the Israelis did. Which is why it’s incumbent upon people who don’t want that to happen to keep Viva La Raza types out.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
kaaleppi wrote:
It is a bit ironic that it is Israel that has a modern day Warsaw ghetto on its turf. Nothing gets legally in or out.
A convenient analogy, and not true.
In all their years of national aspiration, who “gave” the Palestinians even an inch of ground to call their own? Not the Mameluks, not he Ottomans, not the British (although they tried), not the Jordanians or the Egyptians when they had 19 years of chances.
Nope. The answer is Israel. In 2005, the Israeli occupation/administration was withdrawn, its citizens evacuated, the agricultural infrastructure was left behind (to be destroyed by the Gazans). The Palestinian Authority was to be in charge; the borders were not shut in blockade. Had it worked, the West Bank would have been next.
Over and over on this site, it has been claimed that Hamas won an election. But Hamas did not win an election to assume governance; it won seats in parliament, it rejected negotiations with Fatah, and its thugs seized the territory as a launching pad for rockets and violence. Fatah sympathizers were murdered and some were driven out. Israel closed borders to prevent the further importation of weapons, and endured near constant bombardment nevertheless.
Now, you may not like this narrative, but it is certainly closer to the truth than the clumsy Warsaw ghetto analogy.
And one more thought. It is conspicuously convenient for Europeans–and non-European apologists as well–to analogize Israel and Nazi Germany. Doing so allows them to engage in historical amnesia and self-forgiveness.
(Finland excepted, of course.)[/quote]
I have nothing against the narrative you presented. And an analogy is what it is, it is not supposed to be watertight and to withstand scrutiny. It’s an image and in this case I can’t rationalize it away, regardless of the history behind present situation.
EDIT: Talking about narratives, some claim that Finland can not be excepted, because we made an alliance with Germany as a result of active politics, not as a last chance.
None of the jews in Finland were sent to Germany, they served their country and did it well, but of the refugees from central Europe 8 were sent to Estonia and consequently to consentration camps before further deliverances were stopped by Mannerheim. Likewise among the russian prisoners that were handed over to germans there have probably been jews.
Between 1942-44 there was a fieldsynagogue for the jews in finnsh army. Probably the only of its kind in axis countries.
valience I agree my anger was aimed at others, especially those who think the mexicans are intruding on american lands when it was completely the other way around.
nobody has a right to any land. the only right is might, it always has been and always will be.
I’d say most people also don’t realise the main reason for land grabs in the region are for the water table - look at a map of the underground water table and look at a map at the lands israel wants. water is precious there and the biggest limiting resource.
if you ask me i don’t know why anyone would want to live in a stinking hot desert. these places must attract crazy people because you’d be crazy to live there. it WAS an oasis in the past but now it is a desert.
[quote]kaaleppi wrote:
DrSkeptix wrote:
kaaleppi wrote:
It is a bit ironic that it is Israel that has a modern day Warsaw ghetto on its turf. Nothing gets legally in or out.
A convenient analogy, and not true.
In all their years of national aspiration, who “gave” the Palestinians even an inch of ground to call their own? Not the Mameluks, not he Ottomans, not the British (although they tried), not the Jordanians or the Egyptians when they had 19 years of chances.
Nope. The answer is Israel. In 2005, the Israeli occupation/administration was withdrawn, its citizens evacuated, the agricultural infrastructure was left behind (to be destroyed by the Gazans). The Palestinian Authority was to be in charge; the borders were not shut in blockade. Had it worked, the West Bank would have been next.
Over and over on this site, it has been claimed that Hamas won an election. But Hamas did not win an election to assume governance; it won seats in parliament, it rejected negotiations with Fatah, and its thugs seized the territory as a launching pad for rockets and violence. Fatah sympathizers were murdered and some were driven out. Israel closed borders to prevent the further importation of weapons, and endured near constant bombardment nevertheless.
Now, you may not like this narrative, but it is certainly closer to the truth than the clumsy Warsaw ghetto analogy.
And one more thought. It is conspicuously convenient for Europeans–and non-European apologists as well–to analogize Israel and Nazi Germany. Doing so allows them to engage in historical amnesia and self-forgiveness.
(Finland excepted, of course.)
I have nothing against the narrative you presented. And an analogy is what it is, it is not supposed to be watertight and to withstand scrutiny. It’s an image and in this case I can’t rationalize it away, regardless of the history behind present situation.
EDIT: Talking about narratives, some claim that Finland can not be excepted, because we made an alliance with Germany as a result of active politics, not as a last chance.
None of the jews in Finland were sent to Germany, they served their country and did it well, but of the refugees from central Europe 8 were sent to Estonia and consequently to consentration camps before further deliverances were stopped by Mannerheim. Likewise among the russian prisoners that were handed over to germans there have probably been jews.
Between 1942-44 there was a fieldsynagogue for the jews in finnsh army. Probably the only of its kind in axis countries.[/quote]