But when these 'settlers' are removed, even on a very small scale as a PR excercise, it's just horiffic and we should condemn those who would be so nasty to the lovely Israeli 'settlers'.
(Images: Above, 1948 Palestine land ownership divided between Arabs (green) and Jews (red). Who has the majority in every region? Below, a letter from Einstein talking about Palestine.)
As the BBC story linked to above says:
"Israeli police have destroyed the small illegal settler outpost camp of Maoz Ester in the occupied West Bank. Israeli settlements in the West Bank are illegal under international law and widely considered a barrier to peace. But the outpost of seven huts, east of Ramallah, was among dozens of sites also illegal under Israeli law, built without government authorisation."
Widely considered a barrier to peace!? Invading another country and pitching tent on their land, then claiming you have the right to that land and anyone who doesn't say so is a Jew hater? Um...no. You are not God-Men. I do not acknowledge your right to "exist", as you so often say, if you mean to exist as a nation on stolen ground; uttering 'never again', while causing that 'again' of which you speak, to become a reality.
Media language confuses Mideast coverage
(Image: One of several maps of Israel drawn without any recognition of the Palestinians' 'right to exist'. Israel's expansionism and accusations of racism towards others, while they go out and get their 'Lebensraum' in a once sovereign state, is a great hypocrisy.)That said, do I think the state of Israel should never have been created? Well, as I have said before, I understand given the circumstances of the early 20th Century world that 'the Jews' may wish to have their own state. But let's be realistic here, Palestine was never 'a land without a people', was it? It kind of had, you know, a native population, the majority of which were Arabs. And you came in and took over, didn't you?
It's funny, it reminds me of how American settlers behaved with the Native Americans hundreds of years ago. That was a tragedy and the end result was a slow and bloody genocide, much as we have seen in the last fifty years in Palestine. And don't bring me the same old recycled lines about terrorists and Israel's right to defend itself. For starters, you'd have to explain how Israel created Hamas then used it as justification for their operations 'abroad' in Gaza, a region of sovereign Palestine.
Israel's right to exist means its right to exist anywhere, anytime, all it has to do is point on a map and say 'this is Israel'. Possibly this could extend as far as Saudi Arabia, parts of Egypt and Iraq, etc. as these maps suggest. When Napoleon did it, he was wrong. When Hitler did it, he was wrong. When Israel does it, guess what, they are wrong too.
Israel's right to defend itself means its right to wage siege warfare on the world's largest concentration camp, Gaza, attacking sources of food, cutting off water, dehumanising humans, and not expect any retaliation. None whatsoever. Oh, you fired a rocket? You terrorist! (Even as Sderot was built on a former Palestinian settlement, the residents of which were evicted before the site was bulldozed and Sderot built in its place. Not justifying the rockets, just providing context.) Now you fired ten rockets, we get to drop a thousand bombs including white phosphorous. After all, we just defend ourselves!
But no media will report on any time in the last sixty years when Native Israelis (as they might be known if history treats them better than modernity has) were evicted by force. Nope, it didn't happen. No Israeli expansionism ever happened, they're just taking what's theirs. Like I'm taking back my wallet. It just *looks* like it's in your pocket...
It's funny when pro-Israel people remind us of the 'religion of peace' and the many atrocities committed in the name of Islam, then go ahead and butcher more people, because religious history says this they (Jews) have been promised this land! 'Religions of peace', more like.
What are moral and realistic solutions?
The consumer has helped by cutting off funds to Israel, by not buying anything with '729' at the start of the barcode. (Boycott Israeli Goods) I don't think I buy anything Israeli anyway, but there's a long list of companies that are complicit in trading goods from the Occupied Territories, who it would be best to avoid. Unfortunately, American elected representatives aren't so ethical, and like to send lots of money to Israel. A third of ALL their foreign aid, in fact.
Unfortunately, let's be realistic here, Palestine is confined to history. Anything else is nostalgia and pure hope. I think the best solution is to accept the inevitable and get the Arabs who don't want to live under Israeli rule, to go to Jordan. It's not ideal, far from it. But I'm being pragmatic here. I don't want a modern era repeat of Wounded Knee.
Apart from that, it would be nice to see international pressure on an expansionist Israel; however, with "Zion" being the pet project of the good old House of Rothschild and the other banking elites around the world, it's unlikely to ever materialise due to the scale of influence held by these money powers.
I guarantee this: the moral ideal of the two-state solution isn't going to happen. Not that it would be fair or right, but moving the Arabs who want to govern themselves as an ethnic majority (rather than be a minority in Israel) away, into Jordan or wherever else, might be a better solution. If there had been an opportunity to evacuate the Natives at Wounded Knee to somewhere safer, you would have taken it, right?
Posts
.jpg)
9 comments:
I would like to make clear at the outset of this comment that everything I say is said in the interest of meaningful and constructive debate and is non-inflammatory, as I hold your opinion in the highest respect, I'm only arguing points.
About the Native American thing:
The first settlers in America, contrary to popular belief, were the first struck, not the instigators of violence. As far as reliable history can tell, the first Indian attack was against settlers because of the conversions of several tribesmen that worried the hierarchy of the Indian tribe.
The Indian attacks were brutal and indiscriminate, thus causing the settlers to consider all Indians to be savage, and repercussions against the Indians caused the Indians to feel the same.
On and on it went until everybody hated everyone else.
"The land the white men stole" was actually land stolen from one tribe by another; so it had been for the past thousand or so years. The culture of American Indians, much like their European counterparts, was that of conquest and war.
Many like to say the Indian lived in perfect harmony with nature and his fellow man, but the reason the Indians were nomadic, therefore constantly conquering land, was because they would pollute and starve their lands of all resources until they were forced to move.
Since the earth is impossible to destroy, they would eventually migrate back when things were better.
It is true that the Americans mishandled and mistreated the Indians for the most part, and that is a fact that will haunt America for eternity, but there was unnecessary aggression from both sides for the entirety of the Indian wars.
With few exceptions, tribe constantly fought tribe for lands and power until the settlers galvanized the Indians against their new, common enemy.
I am no expert in the Middle-Eastern affairs at all, so you may be absolutely right there, but I've always thought the Palestinians were nomads, not having more than loose confederations between families and such to call home.
Israel used to own much more land than it does now, as the land was promised by God to them.
(Hence the term "Promised Land".)
I can't speak with any authority about where Israel or Palestine is entitled to be, and I know the Israeli government is much like my own. (Rotten and despotic.)
I believe Israel should have all the lands they previously owned, much as I believe the Lakotah nation deserves the land they previously owned, and as promised them in the Treaty of 1851.
The map you linked to, I really didn't understand, because Israel was never promised so much land; if they intend to conquer most of the Arab world, as the map showed, God would not favor them in such an endeavor.
Israel has God's protection, as evidenced by their unlikely victory in the Six Day War, but He would not protect their invasion of land not promised to them.
I am predicting some internationalist group like the UN or EU will soon cause a deal to be reached in Israel, ending any war or military engagements, but who knows how long such a treaty will last.
Terribly long comment (sorry) in short, Israel should only concern itself with lands they rightfully own, whatever they may be; and, the U.S., at least, should remain completely out of the picture both militarily and financially.
Correct about the Native Americans, I'm just saying the end results have been comparable between the two historical events.
It's worth noting that the vast majority of settlers in Israel today, are not descendants of the original Israelis/Jews. They are converts to Judaism from eastern Europe ("Khazar" Jews). So the claim that they're taking back what's rightfully theirs doesn't hold true, at least for most Israelis.
The British have been a massive part of the problem, promising Palestine to both the Jews and Arabs at different points, before they left the place.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Gang
Are you aware that Zionist terror groups, such as Lehi (the "Stern Gang"), tried to get in contact with the Nazis to join the war against Britain, and set up a National Socialist state of Israel, during WWII? That today, Israel commemorates this group for being freedom fighters?
The UN Mandate from 1948 was an internationalist agreement that delineated a fair border between Israel and Palestine. Over the years though, Israel has continued to expand beyond these restrictions.
No, I was not aware of that; like I said, I'm not well versed at all in Middle-Eastern affairs.
Thanks for the input!
It's not what you get taught in school, but there is a dark side to the history of Israel. I just found this stuff out a couple of months ago.
Yeah, you never know what you'll stumble onto.
Seems like people aren't taught anything of worth in school; I was blessed with parents who both experienced and foresaw the errors of the public school system, and I count myself among the "fortunate few" homeschoolers.
I'm quite far from genius as it is, so I can only imagine (with a shudder) what I would have become in the Government Indoctrination Centers!
Riddled with Ritalin and foaming at the mouth with ADD medication, probably.
On a halfway related issue, have you ever heard of the Republic of Lakotah?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Lakotah
What is your opinion of such a movement?
I've followed it since its inception, but it doesn't seem to be going anywhere.
I would support it, but I don't know that their leadership is strong enough to maintain freedom.
I don't know what you mean...I went to state school, Ritalin is delicious, vaccines protect my health! lol
I didn't really have any Ritalin. But I still remember all the kids poppin' pills.
Everything of worth I have learnt has come from outside the deaducation system.
BTW, I just heard something on Alex Jones today when he talked about the task they give kids in schools, to work out who to 'save' on a lifeboat (or similar analogy), and you have to choose between people of different professions eg teacher, policeman, lawyer, doctor, and so on - who gets to live and who dies.
I've personally done this excercise about three times at school!
It teaches the kids, says Jones (and I agree now I've given it some thought), not to think outside the box and find ways to let them all survive, and instead to accept eugenics as a necessary evil.
And Lakotah is awesome, as far as I know. They have their own coins, as Midas sells them, right? Interesting stuff.
It's risky. The good ol' Feds would be looking for an excuse to go all Waco on them, but good luck to the free citizens! (and others like Bo Gritz type survivalists etc)
Yeah, I saw those coins at InfoWars, but they are actually being designed for the Republic of Lakotah's rival movement, which is called "Lakota Oyate".
(Also known as the Free and Independent Lakota Nation.)
Canupa Gluha Mani runs this movement, and apparently split, on friendly terms, from the Republic of Lakotah some time ago.
Whenever the word "Lakotah" lacks an "h", you'll know the Republic is not involved.
The Republic is still working on their currency, but I haven't heard anything on that in about a year.
Post a Comment