The only fair choice would have been to create a country that both the Jews and the Palestinians could have participated in. Let the people of the area determine their own futures.

Chris,
In a way I agree with you but I don’t think that would have turned out any better either (very similar to Iraq right now: seems impossible to create a government that encompasses all three sects, but just as impossible to partition it without each of the partitioned sectors fighting over resources, borders, etc).

In the final analysis it seems to me that humankind just hasn’t evolved to the point that we can see beyond our tribal instincts and recognize that fighting other tribes actually hurts our own. Unless or until that happens, it seems that allowing wars to determine who controls a land is inevitable. Might makes right unless we can come up with a better system.

Palestinians were given a chance to determine their fate through the political process and they completely rejected that.

Think of how ridiculous this sounds if you’re Palestinian. “You have to give up half of your land to recent immigrants because some insane Germans massacred them. If you don’t agree to do so, we’ll help them take it from you anyway.”

The only fair choice would have been to create a country that both the Jews and the Palestinians could have participated in. Let the people of the area determine their own futures.

Chris said:
January 19, 2007 at 7:14 pm
And a big difference, of course, with the situation in 1947 and the Jews vs. the American Indians today, is that no one has attempted genocide against the American Indians recently.

The situation really isn’t all that different. The Indians were being forced off their land as the Palestinians are now. The Indians fought back, the Palestinians are now.

And on this: how did that turn out for the American Indians? Not so good, right? That’s what I’m saying: yes, it’s understandable that people would take up arms and fight, but the Palestinians were given a chance to determine their fate through the political process and they completely rejected that. A parallel would have been if the American Indians, instead of being driven off of their land, had been offered a chance to divide up territory and they refused, choosing to fight for all of the land instead. They weren’t really given that opportunity (except for false promises like the Cherokee nation). But if they had been, they would have been wise if they had chosen to coexist instead of trying to drive out the white man. The Palestinians actually were given that option and they refused it (and in their case, the Jews weren’t just a colonial force, they had legitimate claim to the land as well).

What I’m saying is that we can’t go around and start giving people land because of “historical claims.� I’m sorry, but it’s not feasible or is it right to start giving away people’s land because thousands of years ago someones distant relative might have lived there.

Right, which is why I brought up the unique situation of the Jews in the 1940’s. Generally I agree that we can’t make reparations by giving land back, but the Jews clearly needed a homeland and they had as much right to claim that plot of land as did the Palestinians (which is what the partition plan acknowledged).

What do you think should have been done by the UN when Britain turned the issue over to them?

Likewise, we should recognize that prior to all of the colonial adventures in the middle east, the Palestinians and the Israelis both had historical claims to that land.

What I’m saying is that we can’t go around and start giving people land because of “historical claims.” I’m sorry, but it’s not feasible or is it right to start giving away people’s land because thousands of years ago someones distant relative might have lived there.

If we were to try to reverse the colonialization, we’d have to recognize that all of these tribes have a historical claim to the land.

So what? Isn’t that what happened in Palestine? Except, of course, they didn’t give the 10% of the Christians their own partition.

Likewise, we should recognize that prior to all of the colonial adventures in the middle east, the Palestinians and the Israelis both had historical claims to that land. Any solution that doesn’t recognize that would be like saying we’re going to give back a portion of US territory to the Cherokee but the rest of the tribes are out of luck. The two state solution is an attempt to allow both Jews and Palestinians to set up autonomous governments. The Jews chose to accept that while the Palestinians with their actions have said that it has to be all or nothing.

And a big difference, of course, with the situation in 1947 and the Jews vs. the American Indians today, is that no one has attempted genocide against the American Indians recently.

The situation really isn’t all that different. The Indians were being forced off their land as the Palestinians are now. The Indians fought back, the Palestinians are now.

The Jews had just as much a right to Israel as the American Indians have to North America.

Sadly I think that’s a true statement, but the side of the equation that should have been remedied is that the American Indians should have been given more soveriegnty and land rights here, not that the Jews shouldn’t have been given sovereignty and land rights in Israel.

Look, I’m not a knee jerk supporter of Israel or of the Zionist cause. I fully understand why the Palestinians were put out about the UN mandate of Israel, and I’ve often thought of it in terms of what I would think if the UN told me that I had to move off of my land because it was being given back to the Cherokee (my home is actually quite near the origin of the Trail of Tears). I get that. But there were ways that these grievances should have been handled politically rather than through militance.

And a big difference, of course, with the situation in 1947 and the Jews vs. the American Indians today, is that no one has attempted genocide against the American Indians recently.

Your initial post implied that the Palestinians became militantly opposed to the existence of Israel because of the way the Israelis treated them.

No, I specifically said that there weren’t suicide bombings until their land was handed to the Zionists. Palestinian violence has been related directly to the theft of their land.

Here’s what I said:

There weren’t suicide bombings in Palestine before the United States and Britain stole their land and gave it to the Zionist movement.

Here’s what you said:

And the Palestinian rioting started prior to Israel even existing, when the partition plan was first being debated by the UN in 1947.

I do stand by the fact that the Israeli treatment of the occupied territories has exacerbated the problem.

And you still haven’t addressed my question asking for evidence that the Israelis have suppressed Palestinian nationalist movements in order to give power to the radicals and thus destroy their credibility.

I read it in a book by Noam Chomsky. I don’t have the book or his list of sources handy, my apologies.

Oh, and if colonialism is antithetical to self determination, then I guess you’d agree that the Ottoman Empire didn’t have claim to the region either.

If the Palestinians didn’t want to be under Ottoman control, then yes I agree.

And prior to that, there was alternating colonization by various Persian and Arab groups after the collapse of the Roman Empire. And prior to that colonialization, let’s see, whose land was it? Hmm….

I just assumed that the land’s rightful owners were the people living on it. The Jews had just as much a right to Israel as the American Indians have to North America.

Even if we attribute benevolent reasons for the partition, it hardly means that the Palestinians have not been mistreated under Israeli occupation. Mistreated and prodded into militancy. And wasn’t that the point of this argument in the first place?

Chris,
Your initial post implied that the Palestinians became militantly opposed to the existence of Israel because of the way the Israelis treated them. That is what I was specifically addressing, because that can’t be true if the violence started prior to Israel’s existence.

And you still haven’t addressed my question asking for evidence that the Israelis have suppressed Palestinian nationalist movements in order to give power to the radicals and thus destroy their credibility.

Oh, and if colonialism is antithetical to self determination, then I guess you’d agree that the Ottoman Empire didn’t have claim to the region either. And prior to that, there was alternating colonization by various Persian and Arab groups after the collapse of the Roman Empire. And prior to that colonialization, let’s see, whose land was it? Hmm….

If I understand your point, it’s that we are right to reject Islamist spin but we shouldn’t ignore it either. We shouldn’t actually believe that if we give them what they say they want (by withdrawing support for Israel, staying out of Middle East affairs, etc) that they will be perfectly happy and we’ll all live in peace, but we should hear what they are saying and how it plays to the moderate ears in the Muslim world. If our goal is to keep the 87% from joining the 13%, we need to better understand why the spin might resonate with them.

I agree with this at least as much as what I actually had in mind, which was that if we’re going to reject Islamist spin, we ought also to be casting a jaundiced eye towards other kinds of spin being bandied about.

The viewpoints of USA and Israel are very closely aligned. It’s not really even a partisan issue like almost everything else in American politics. But the relative lack of partisanship doesn’t mean there isn’t spin–only that both Dems and Reps buy into it.

What I’m calling spin is rhetoric that many who use it probably believe with all their hearts. But anything Middle-East- or Israel- or Muslim-related is extremely hot these days, and most of it, in my opinion, is not very well balanced.

Guess the pay must be good.

Exactly.

Lets do something about it.

It’s not hard to reconcile what I said at all. If you recognize international law, Britain was the “owner� of the land after the demise of the Ottoman Empire (and under the Ottoman Empire, the Palestinians didn’t have self determination either).

You can’t consider the British colonial claims to be valid if you are concerned with self-determination. Colonialism is antithetical to self-determination.

Yes, the Palestinians wanted self determination, but only under the condition that the Israelis DIDN’T get the right to self determination.

The land was Palestinian land, less than 32% of the area was occupied by Jews as of 1945. That hardly seems like ground for giving half of their land to the immigrant Jews. The Jewish claim to the land of Israel is as valid as a Jewish claim to New York City.

But the Jews agreed to the partition plan because it allowed for both groups to divide the territory to which both had historic claims. The Palestinians rejected it because to them it had to be all or nothing.

Even if we attribute benevolent reasons for the partition, it hardly means that the Palestinians have not been mistreated under Israeli occupation. Mistreated and prodded into militancy. And wasn’t that the point of this argument in the first place?

Jews were living on this land too, and you’re right that there were no suicide bombings at that time. But the Jews agreed to the partition plan because it allowed for both groups to divide the territory to which both had historic claims. The Palestinians rejected it because to them it had to be all or nothing.

In addition they came to understand that they were faced with what was fundamentally a political challenge, and that the prime objective was to separate the terrorists from their base in the community. This meant addressing the grievances of that base seriously, and it meant cooperating with moderates in that community who might have shared some of the terrorists’ goals but shrank from their tactics

Excellent point. By addressing the legitimate grievances of these areas, we drive a wedge between the extremists and moderates. Our botched wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, our bullying of Iran, the further plight of the Palestinians and our support of oppressive regimes in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere, all create the opposite effect.

You’re not going to be able to negotiate with radical terrorist types, but you should isolate them from their recruiting bases and the broader moderate populations.

We shouldn’t actually believe that if we give them what they say they want (by withdrawing support for Israel, staying out of Middle East affairs, etc) that they will be perfectly happy and we’ll all live in peace, but we should hear what they are saying and how it plays to the moderate ears in the Muslim world. If our goal is to keep the 87% from joining the 13%, we need to better understand why the spin might resonate with them.

Bingo. Look at any extremist/terrorist movement that has thrived and there is a more moderate population that tolerates the violence because it supports their political goals. They may dislike and condemn violence as a means, but they support the end.

In Understanding the Enemy, Containing the Threat by Louise Richardson, the author explains that successes against terrorist organizations have a number of features in common. They were led primarily by police intelligence units working closely with the military and the courts. In addition they came to understand that they were faced with what was fundamentally a political challenge, and that the prime objective was to separate the terrorists from their base in the community. This meant addressing the grievances of that base seriously, and it meant cooperating with moderates in that community who might have shared some of the terrorists’ goals but shrank from their tactics (loosely quoting from the NY Times Book Review ).

1) “And how could Britain and US have stolen the Palestinians’ land when it wasn’t their land (it had been given as a mandate to Great Britain after the Ottoman Empire lost it in WWI).”

2) I hardly see where you can make the case that Israel’s policies caused the extremists to reject self determination in favor of terrorism.

So, The land didn’t belong to the people living on it (The Palestinians) B) The British gave the land to someone else (The Zionists) over violent protest by the Palestinians C) The Palestinians are rejecting self-determination?????

It seems they were embracing self-determination when they were fighting for the creation of their own state, free from foreign rule.