Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

What You Don’t Know About Gaza

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Israel/Palestine Donate to DU
 
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-07-09 10:07 PM
Original message
What You Don’t Know About Gaza
Source: New York Times

By RASHID KHALIDI

NEARLY everything you’ve been led to believe about Gaza is wrong. Below are a few essential points that seem to be missing from the conversation, much of which has taken place in the press, about Israel’s attack on the Gaza Strip.

THE GAZANS Most of the people living in Gaza are not there by choice. The majority of the 1.5 million people crammed into the roughly 140 square miles of the Gaza Strip belong to families that came from towns and villages outside Gaza like Ashkelon and Beersheba. They were driven to Gaza by the Israeli Army in 1948.

THE OCCUPATION The Gazans have lived under Israeli occupation since the Six-Day War in 1967. Israel is still widely considered to be an occupying power, even though it removed its troops and settlers from the strip in 2005. Israel still controls access to the area, imports and exports, and the movement of people in and out. Israel has control over Gaza’s air space and sea coast, and its forces enter the area at will. As the occupying power, Israel has the responsibility under the Fourth Geneva Convention to see to the welfare of the civilian population of the Gaza Strip.

THE BLOCKADE Israel’s blockade of the strip, with the support of the United States and the European Union, has grown increasingly stringent since Hamas won the Palestinian Legislative Council elections in January 2006. Fuel, electricity, imports, exports and the movement of people in and out of the Strip have been slowly choked off, leading to life-threatening problems of sanitation, health, water supply and transportation.

The blockade has subjected many to unemployment, penury and malnutrition. This amounts to the collective punishment — with the tacit support of the United States — of a civilian population for exercising its democratic rights.

THE CEASE-FIRE Lifting the blockade, along with a cessation of rocket fire, was one of the key terms of the June cease-fire between Israel and Hamas. This accord led to a reduction in rockets fired from Gaza from hundreds in May and June to a total of less than 20 in the subsequent four months (according to Israeli government figures). The cease-fire broke down when Israeli forces launched major air and ground attacks in early November; six Hamas operatives were reported killed.

WAR CRIMES The targeting of civilians, whether by Hamas or by Israel, is potentially a war crime. Every human life is precious. But the numbers speak for themselves: Nearly 700 Palestinians, most of them civilians, have been killed since the conflict broke out at the end of last year. In contrast, there have been around a dozen Israelis killed, many of them soldiers. Negotiation is a much more effective way to deal with rockets and other forms of violence. This might have been able to happen had Israel fulfilled the terms of the June cease-fire and lifted its blockade of the Gaza Strip.

This war on the people of Gaza isn’t really about rockets. Nor is it about “restoring Israel’s deterrence,” as the Israeli press might have you believe. Far more revealing are the words of Moshe Yaalon, then the Israeli Defense Forces chief of staff, in 2002: “The Palestinians must be made to understand in the deepest recesses of their consciousness that they are a defeated people.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/08/opinion/08khalidi.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
davefromqueens Donating Member (277 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-07-09 10:09 PM
Response to Original message
1. 1948, 1967, 1973, Oslo
The first 3 Israel gets attacked for no reason. I'll leave out that Jews were driven from this land prior to 1948.

Oslo gave Arafat everything he asked for on a silver platter and he turned it down.

When someone attacks you and in the war you gain land, it's your land.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-07-09 10:12 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. Your Last Statement, Sir, is Puerile Nonesense
The other two are not much better, but that one really takes the mustard....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DogPoundPup Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-07-09 10:13 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. Gave Arafat everything he could ever want...cutting Palestine into numerable
pockets with Israeli checkpoints at each crossing?

Please...be truthful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Veritas_et_Aequitas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-07-09 10:15 PM
Response to Reply #1
4. How enlightened and imperialist of you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Idealism Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-07-09 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #1
5. Hamas was around in 1948, 1967, and 1973?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davefromqueens Donating Member (277 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-07-09 10:23 PM
Response to Reply #5
7. Well Let me ask this
What is your opinion of the war of 1973?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Idealism Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-07-09 10:36 PM
Response to Reply #7
10. What does this have to do with current events?
I abhor any war.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davefromqueens Donating Member (277 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-08-09 05:52 PM
Response to Reply #10
42. History is important
How the conflict got started, who has the LEGAL right to what land, stems from 1947/48, 1967, and 1973.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lithos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-07-09 11:02 PM
Response to Reply #5
19. The Muslim Brotherhood
From whom Hamas is an ideological successor to, was present in the Gaza strip during the 1950's and up through 1967 when they were essentially disbanded by Israel. Egypt's behavior during that time in stamping down this group makes Israel's efforts today seem almost petty.

L-
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Idealism Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-07-09 11:04 PM
Response to Reply #19
21. Quite right, but to compare this to the imperialistic notions of past wars I think is wrong
Edited on Wed Jan-07-09 11:04 PM by halo experiment
This is a different animal. As a personal belief, if I may ask, do you think the upcoming Israeli election is driving this violence now? It could have surely erupted at any other point in the past dozen months, if not years, so why now so severe?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lithos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-07-09 11:41 PM
Response to Reply #21
29. I don't think it really is all that much
The war is not a differentiator among the various candidates. All major and medium sized parties signed onto it. Only failure or incompetence at this point would be significant.

This war has been in the works since 2006 and I think the reason it is likely coming up has to do more with the expiration of the truce and the declining popularity of Hamas. It is a macho itching between both sides to prove themselves and to achieve a better position than what they had from the previous truce.

Both sides have calculuses which currently do not promote peace.

For Hamas, one problem which is exacerbating the conflict is that Hamas essentially consists of two wings. There is the extremely militant wing which controls the various brigades and lead by Mashaal who is based in Damascus; Rayyan who was recently killed belonged to that group. The other is more of a civilian group which is where the real government inside of Gaza was coming from. Mashaal is essentially a throwback to the terrorist period of Hamas and really is behind the rocket attacks as an attempt to spur on the aggression. He also is now in control following the effective destruction of the local Hamas Gazan leadership.

You could almost call this division a similar situation to that of Sein Fein and the IRA (though w/r to Hamas, the control of the military side is much greater than that the IRA ever exerted).

For Israel, the issue is Lebanon 2006 where general sentiment is that Israel lost the war because of the divisions among the leadership. At this point, the leadership does not want to appear divided lest they be accused of contributing to another fiasco as in 2006.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Idealism Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-07-09 11:45 PM
Response to Reply #29
32. I don't see how Hamas could think
that after engaging Israel in a battle that they could somehow be in a better position. Attrition is the only way Hamas won't temporarily be wiped from Gaza, but I still don't think that they could credibly claim any type of victory there and because of that how would it better their party?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lithos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-07-09 11:53 PM
Response to Reply #32
35. Again
Lebanon 2006. They thought that Israel had no stomach for fighting and that they would be able to remain at arms length while scoring points. I also attribute this to Mashaal's separation from Gaza proper and his losing of touch with the region.

L-
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveMuslim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-08-09 06:28 PM
Response to Reply #35
45. My husband translated commentary from an Egyptian which looked at the conflict
as the result of Israel having been foiled in Lebanon in 2006, and utterly surprised by Hamas' win in the 2006 elections (as were Fatah and the US).

3 goals of Israel were stated to be:

1) To restore its reputation to itself and to the USA -- to show they can "get it done" when need be regionally.
2) To dictate the terms of a long-term agreement with their chosen leadership in Fatah... requiring them of course to clear out Hamas in this lame duck period.
3) political capital that will be created if Israel destroys Hamas... having Israel doing this dirty work will result in an enhanced position when dealing with Fatah, and also in getting agreements from other key arab countries, namely Egypt, Jordan and KSA.

This commentator said of course Obama was privvy to all this info, and was likely told: the deed will be done by January 20, so that when Obama comes into office he will only have to preside over the deal... and not have his hands dirty.

He also expressed utter disbelief that Egypt was being played off against the Western enemy in the ME... Iran.

I am looking for English translations...but havent found any yet.

Anyway, the commentator is well known and respected in Egypt, Mohammad Heikal
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stillcool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-07-09 10:24 PM
Response to Reply #1
8. "Might makes Right"..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TahitiNut Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-07-09 10:41 PM
Response to Reply #1
11. "Oslo gave Arafat everything he asked for on a silver platter and he turned it down"???
That's one of the most batshit insane sentences I've read on DU ... and that's saying a lot.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Malikshah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-07-09 10:45 PM
Response to Reply #1
12. Oslo most certainly did not. Read the Accords, Read the Letters.
The PLO recognized Israel's right to exist as a state, etc.
Israel recognized the PLO as the legitimate voice of the Palestinians.
These were not letters of true "Mutual recognition"
Shamir is on record as dragging his feet to put settlements down and expand them. So much so that Bush Sr. actually broke with a long standing US tradition and threatened our aid to Israel.

As for the earlier statement-- that, too is off base. In 1948 and 1973 Israel was attacked. Look into the realities and facts there. In 1967, Israel attacked. Again look into the realities and facts there as well.

Stop drinking the kool-aid. There is room for discussion and debate, but only if folks will be accurate from the start.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
shaayecanaan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-07-09 10:59 PM
Response to Reply #1
17. Hi Dave
Edited on Wed Jan-07-09 11:00 PM by shaayecanaan
1967 - Israel attacks Egypt in response to an Arab blockade of the Straits of Tiran. Israel occupies the West Bank, Gaza, and the Golan Heights.

1973 - Egypt and Syria cross the cease-fire lines to recover the territories lost during the 1967 war. They make initial gains but are beaten back in the ensuing Israeli counteroffensive.

That the 1973 war was an attack on Israel is highly disputable, as neither the Syrians nor Egyptians staged any attack on Israeli territory. Nor did the Syrians or the Egyptians showed any inclination to advance beyond their initial gains.

As for the 1967 war, do you consider that the partial blockade of Israel was a valid basis for Israel to launch the six day war?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Matilda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-07-09 11:32 PM
Response to Reply #1
27. That would mean that Germany should still be controlling most of Europe.
I don't think so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Duckhunter935 Donating Member (777 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-07-09 10:22 PM
Response to Original message
6. 1947 UN brokered two state solution,Israel accepted, Arabs rejected
After World War I, the League of Nations approved the British Mandate of Palestine with the intent of creating a "national home for the Jewish people.It being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine"<8> In 1947, the United Nations approved the partition of Palestine into two states, one Jewish and one Arab.<9> On May 14, 1948 the state of Israel declared independence and this was followed by a war with the surrounding Arab states, which refused to accept the plan.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stillcool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-07-09 10:28 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. and then there's this...
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Israel/Background_I_P_Crisis.html

What were the various positions in 1947?
Both the Palestinians and the Zionists wanted the British out so they could establish an independent state. The Zionists, particularly a right-wing faction led by Menachem Begin, launched a terror campaign against Britain. London, impoverished by the war, announced that it was washing its hands of the problem and turning it over to the UN (though Britain had various covert plans for remaining in the region).
The Zionists declared that, having gone through one of the great catastrophes of modern history, the Jewish people were entitled to a state of their own, one into which they could gather Jewish refugees, still languishing in the displaced persons camps of Europe. The Zionist bottom line was a sovereign state with full control over immigration. The Palestinians argued that the calamity that befell European Jews was hardly their fault. If Jews were entitled to a state, why not carve it out of Germany? As it was, Palestine had more Jewish refugees than any other place in the world. Why should they bear the full burden of atoning for Europe's sins'? They were willing to give full civil rights (though not national rights) to the Jewish minority in an independent Palestine, but they were not willing to give this minority the right to control immigration and bring in more of their co-religionists until they were a majority to take over the whole of Palestine.
A small left-wing minority among the Zionists called for a binational state in Palestine, where both peoples might live together, each with their national rights respected. This view had little support among Jews or Palestinians.

What did the UN do and why?
In November 1947, the UN General Assembly voted to partition Palestine into two independent states, a Jewish state and an Arab state, joined by an economic union, with Jerusalem internationalized.
In 1947 the UN had many fewer members than it does today. Most Third World nations were still colonies and thus not members. Nevertheless, the partition resolution passed because the Soviet Union and its allies voted in favor and because many small states were subject to improper pressure. For example, members of the U.S. Congress told the Philippines that it would not get U.S. economic aid unless it voted for partition. Moscow favored partition as a way to reduce British influence in the region; Israel was viewed as potentially less pro-Western than the dominant feudal monarchies.

Didn't Palestinians have a chance for a state of their own in 1947, but they rejected it by going to war with Israel?
In 1947 Jews were only one-third of the population of Palestine and owned only 6 percent of the land. Yet the partition plan granted the Jewish state 55 percent of the total land area. The Arab state was to have an overwhelmingly Arab population, while the Jewish state would have almost as many Arabs as Jews. If it was unjust to force Jews to be a one-third minority in an Arab state, it was no more just to force Arabs to be an almost 50 percent minority in a Jewish state.
The Palestinians rejected partition. The Zionists accepted it, but in private Zionist leaders had more expansive goals. In 1938, during earlier partition proposals, Ben Gurion stated, "when we become a strong power after the establishment of the state, we will abolish partition and spread throughout all of Palestine."
The Mufti called Palestinians to war against partition, but very few Palestinians responded. The "decisive majority" of Palestinians, confided Ben Gurion, "do not want to fight us." The majority "accept the partition as a fait accompli," reported a Zionist Arab affairs expert. The 1936-39 Arab revolt against the British had mass popular support, but the 1947-48 fighting between the Mufti's followers and Zionist military forces did not.
But even if Palestinians were fully united in going to war against the partition plan, this can provide no moral justification for denying them their basic right of self-determination for over 50 years. This right is not a function of this or that agreement, but a basic right to which every person is entitled. (Israelis don't lose their right to self-determination because their government violated countless UN cease-fire resolutions.)

Didn't Israel achieve larger borders in 1948 as a result of a defensive war of independence?
Arab armies crossed the border on May 15, 1948, after Israel declared its independence. But this declaration came three and a half months before the date specified in the partition resolution. The U.S. had proposed a three-month truce on the condition that Israel postpone its declaration of independence. The Arab states accepted and Israel rejected, in part because it had worked out a secret deal with Jordan's King Abdullah, whereby his Arab Legion would invade the Palestinian territory assigned to the Palestinian state and not interfere with the Jewish state. (Since Jordan was closely allied to Britain, the scheme also provided a way for London to maintain its position in the region.) The other Arab states invaded as much to thwart Abdullah's designs as to defeat Israel.
Most of the fighting took place on territory that was to be part of the Palestinian state or the internationalized Jerusalem. Thus, Israel was primarily fighting not for its survival, but to expand its borders at the expense of the Palestinians. For most of the war, the Israelis actually held both a quantitative and qualitative military edge, apart from the fact that the Arab armies were uncoordinated and operating at cross purposes.
When the armistice agreements were signed in 1949, the Palestinian state had disappeared, its territory taken over by Israel and Jordan, with Egypt in control of the Gaza Strip. Jerusalem, which was to have been internationalized, was divided between Israeli and Jordanian control. Israel now held 78 percent of Palestine. Some 700,000 Palestinians had become refugees.

Why did Palestinians become refugees in 1948?
The Israeli government claims that Palestinians chose to leave Palestine voluntarily, instructed to do so via radio broadcasts from Arab leaders who wanted to clear a path for their armies. But radio broadcasts from the area were monitored by the British and American governments and no evidence of general orders to flee has ever been found. On the contrary, there are numerous instances of Arab leaders telling Palestinians to stay put, to keep their claim to the territory. People flee during wartime for a variety of reasons and that was certainly the case here. Some left because war zones are dangerous environments. Some because of Zionist atrocities-most dramatically at Deir Yassin where, in April 1948, 254 defenseless civilians were slaughtered. Some left in panic, aided by Zionist psychological warfare, which warned that Deir Yassin's fate awaited others. Some were driven out at gunpoint, with killings to speed them on their way, as in the towns of Ramle and Lydda. In short, the Palestinians were subjected to ethnic cleansing similar to that seen in the Balkan wars of the 1990s.
There is no longer any serious doubt that many Palestinians were forcibly expelled. The exact numbers driven out versus those who panicked or sought safety is still contested, but what permits us to say that all were victims of ethnic cleansing is that Israeli officials refused to allow any of them to return. (In Kosovo, any ethnic Albanian refugee, whether he or she was forced out at gunpoint, panicked, or even left to make it easier for NATO to bomb, was entitled to return.) In Israel, Arab villages were bulldozed, citrus groves, lands, and property seized, and their owners and inhabitants prohibited from returning. Not only was the property of "absentee" Palestinians expropriated, but any Palestinians who moved from one place within Israel to another during the war were declared "present absentees" and their property expropriated as well.
Of the 860,000 Arabs who had lived in areas of Palestine that became Israel, only 133,000 remained. Some 470,000 moved into refugee camps on the West Bank (controlled by Jordan) or the Gaza Strip (administered by Egypt). The rest dispersed to Lebanon, Syria, and other countries.

Why did Israel expel the Palestinians?
In part to remove a potential fifth column. In part to obtain their property. In part to make room for more Jewish immigrants. But mostly because the notion of a Jewish state with a large non-Jewish minority was extremely awkward for Israeli leaders. Because Israel took over some territory intended for the Palestinian state, there had actually been an Arab majority living within the borders of Israel. Nor was the idea of expelling Palestinians something that just emerged in the 1948 war. In 1937, Ben Gurion had written to his son, "We will expel the Arabs and take their places...with the force at our disposal."

How did the international community react?
In December 1948, the General Assembly passed Resolution 194, which declared that "refugees wishing to return to their homes and live in peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so" and that "compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return." This same resolution was overwhelmingly adopted year after year. Israel repeatedly refused to carry out the terms of the resolution.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Malikshah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-07-09 10:47 PM
Response to Reply #9
13. The infamous Plan D. Hundreds of thousands of Palestinian refugees before the first Arab state
crossed the border.

Folks need to read some basic history before spouting off.

Thanks for the detailed post clarifying the errors of the earlier message.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-07-09 10:49 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. You Are Refering, Sir, To The Mutual Fighting In the Spring Of '48?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Malikshah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-07-09 10:54 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. If by mutual you are implying equivalency, no. There was no equivalency in Plan D
None.

Avi Shlaim's Iron Wall, for one, put that canard to rest with documentation.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-07-09 11:19 PM
Response to Reply #16
22. That Is A Favorite Work Of Mine, Sir
Its brief treatment of the matter does not really support your statement. 'Plan D' was a battle plan for clearing communications between various Jewish centers and settlements, which routes Arab Palestinian forces had come to dominate during during February. Any competent battle plan towards such an end will necessarily envision measures to drive enemy forces to some distance away from the roads to be kept open, and in a condition of irregular warfare based on popular support, this will entail clearing villages where the irregulars shelter and are based. If by 'no equivalency' you mean there was no comparable central planning staff behind the activities of the Arab Palestinian irregulars you are right enough; if by 'no equivalency' you mean there was no intent on the part of the Arab Palestinian irregulars to drive out Jews, then you are incorrect. Both sides at bottom intended to drive their opponents from the land: one simply made a better job of it in the event. That the execution of 'Plan D' contributed to the flight of Arab Palestinians from the areas being fought over, that is true enough, but fails to sustain the claim it was a plan for mass expulsion of the character which eventually occurred, as it is often mis-characterized. The matter is a good deal more complicated, particularly in its early stages.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Malikshah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-07-09 11:32 PM
Response to Reply #22
26. Agreed to an extent. Arab irregulars, much smaller in number and strength were a threat.
There is no equivalency, however in strength of arms. The Defensive nature of Plan D is belied by its implementation and prior planning, however. The "Iron wall" mentality had won out with Ben-Gurion for the time being. It might be complicated, but it cannot be ignored. Simha Flapan's work addresses this issue as well, albeit in a less detailed fashion.

The end result is quite clear in the end. Hundreds of thousands of refugees (not voluntary) prior to the declaration of the State of Israel.

The disproportionate use of force in 1948 is mirrored today. The same arguments are being used. This is not helpful if one wants to stop the cycle.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-07-09 11:48 PM
Response to Reply #26
33. In the Early stages, Sir, Arms Were Reasonably Equivalent
Edited on Wed Jan-07-09 11:48 PM by The Magistrate
It was not until around April that the Hagganah received supplies of weapons from Czechoslovakia that turned the balance. Those are, as they say, the breaks. An odd feature of the early stages of Arab palestinian departure is that in some cases it was a more or less voluntary political act. This applies only to departures from areas allotted by the U.N. to the 'Jewish Zone' by the '47, but it included large numbers of people, and was meant by the Mufti to demonstrate the refusal of Arabs to live under Jewish rule. As near as can be counted at this late date, the number of Arab Palestinians in flight prior to the end of the Mandate was about 170,000, and hard fighting had been going on for four months at least.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Malikshah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-08-09 09:42 AM
Response to Reply #33
38. Simha Flapan would disagree with you on some points
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stillcool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-07-09 10:59 PM
Response to Reply #13
18. I've just started on the basic history stuff...
I seem to have had the idea that world history..for all practical purpose..began in 1776.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lithos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-07-09 11:24 PM
Response to Reply #9
24. True, but myopic
The period after both WWI and WWII saw many extensive ethnic cleansing and migration efforts as the world essentially readjusted itself. There was a secondary period as each of the colonies took control including what is happening in the former Soviet Union. I am not going to condone what happened, but to point out that what happened in Palestine/Israel was not unique, nor was it a conspiracy which is what people are implying. It also is incorrect to suggest that they are the only case where the refugees were not allowed back.

A few broad examples:

India/Pakistan partition over a multi-year period, where many millions of Muslims were forced out of India towards Bangladesh and Pakistan. This separation was extremely violent and has left many ill-feelings today. The situation in Kashmir is a result of this.

Poland/Germany/Russia where millions of people were uprooted as part of the border readjustments following both WWI and WW II.

Czechoslovakia/Germany - After WW II the ethnic Germans whose ancestors had lived for a thousand or more years in the Sudetenland were evicted. You can repeat this for the Germans in Romania as well.

France/Algeria - Many French nationals, including those whose families had been in Algeria for many hundreds of years, were evicted following the establishment of Algeria as a country.

Sephardis - 800,000 Sephardi Jews were evicted from Arab countries

Greeks/Turkey - the expulsion of Greeks from Constantinople in the 1950's along with the expulsion of Turkish Cypriots in the 1970's. Several hundred thousand.

Other groups - those in the Russian Caucasus, the Kurds, Italians from Libya, etc.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stillcool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-07-09 11:30 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. I've been reading a bit about empires..
and world history. It is much easier to read about the past. It doesn't have the emotion of real time life and death, but it certainly depicts the human nature of things.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lithos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-07-09 11:51 PM
Response to Reply #25
34. It is more than empire
Edited on Wed Jan-07-09 11:51 PM by Lithos
To be blunt, the world in which we live in is extremely bigoted and biased. To see this, look at a political and ethnic map of Europe prior to WWI and look at it now. You will find that almost each and every state has moved towards a homogenization, not towards heterogeneity inside of a border. The Tsarist and Soviet Empires were well known for its wide variety of ethnicities, but today at breakup you will see that the various republics have also grown more homogeneous. China, also home to many nationalities, has become increasingly intolerant of major differences for non-Hans and growing increasingly homogeneous as well. This is backed up by the extinction of hundreds and thousands of cultures and languages.

North America and England are probably the only major area of note where heterogeneity is tolerated at this time, though you can see the tensions even here (Quebecois, the anti-immigration movement, etc.)

L-

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Magistrate Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-08-09 05:57 PM
Response to Reply #34
43. Very True, Sir
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Malikshah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-07-09 11:36 PM
Response to Reply #24
28. Not myopic for I do not ignore these as well as the close to million Muslims from the Caucasus
Edited on Wed Jan-07-09 11:39 PM by Malikshah
region in the later 19th century...the hundreds of thousands from the Balkans.

Each and every episode is a blight on humanity.

To ignore any is to ignore all.

Look to the post that elicited my eventual response-- using the same tired simplistic argument. There is a clear lack of knowledge of what took place in the mandatory period. A willful ignorance of what happened in these years throughout the region.

Only one group is viewed as the victim. That is wrong. And not helpful for finding a solution.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lithos Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-07-09 11:45 PM
Response to Reply #28
31. Then I applaud you
Most of the problem with people is that they achieve a "favoritism" towards one group over another and tend to not see the common patterns which have occurred.

I think we are very similar in the respect you are stating. To myself to revisit the mandate period over and over is to become stuck in time and not look to what can or should be done today. The situation today is different than it was then and I would rather focus on finding a respectful solution which works for all people today. At this point, both sides seem stuck in a briar patch and their thrashing around are hurting themselves and each other.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Malikshah Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-08-09 09:41 AM
Response to Reply #31
37. True--but the arguments put forth -- specifically the one that led to the subthread
Do go back to the past and provide a skewed, if not outright, false history as a means to support their views/arguments for what is going on today.

The old canards of a land without a people for a people without a land...never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity...Camp David II... they ignore history to suit their purposes.

When someone actually looks at the history of the events with open eyes. Warts an all as they appear on every group-- that is the path to a solution.

Heck, the history of the Truce that just ended is being spun and re-spun, ignoring all of the events that took place, and the context in which they took place.

People need to own all of history. Not just the part that suits their purpose.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Mosby Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-08-09 10:09 AM
Response to Reply #9
39. That summary is extremely skewed and factually wrong
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hell Hath No Fury Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-08-09 01:38 PM
Response to Reply #6
41. Why should they?
You keep posting this as if this would have solved all the problems. But seriously, why should the Arab people who had been on that land for geneations have agreed to having their lands taken from them for a State not of their making? Were the native peoples of the American wrong to fight against the Spanish and other Europeans who came to take what had long been theirs?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RandomThoughts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-07-09 10:52 PM
Response to Original message
15. Any person
That claims another group of people, are defeated people. If they believe it, or want others to believe it. That individual, in my view has sunk to the very depth of embracing defeat, and has sided with all that is wrong.

The claiming of an us and them...

If another peoples are defeated, then so are all people, as 'the other people' sinks lower, the rest go with. Driving a group into depravity or hopelessness will only spread that desperation back onto the group that falsely claims some moral, or worldly victory based on the suffering of others.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
razors edge Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-07-09 11:24 PM
Response to Reply #15
23. I would have said..
It seams like mankind is trying to climb out of a pit of zombies with them dragging us back in, but I think you said it better.

:)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RandomThoughts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-07-09 11:45 PM
Response to Reply #23
30. zombie metaphors, lot can be said there.
I don't like zombie metaphors myself, the dead/living thing just goes to deep for me.

But I get your drift, it seems like strife and tension in the world is like Whack-a-mole(another imperfect metaphor). Just keeps finding new places to pop up and try to bring people down, and cause so many problems for so many people.

I find some comfort in knowing that the world has gotten a bit better every century, and it is the direction you are going, not where you are at, that matters.

I might even go as far as to say, humanity has a firm grasp on the hand holds of our better natures, we will make it out of this.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
razors edge Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-08-09 12:07 AM
Response to Reply #30
36. I hope so too.
We have proven ourselves very adept at finding new ways to die, I think we should spend more of our energies finding new ways to live.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Vegasaurus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-08-09 10:49 AM
Response to Reply #15
40. A defeated people vs. Hamas's call for dead people
(all Jews, of course)

Hamas believes all of Israel is occupied, and the terorrist group isn't going to stop their violence or resistance for any peace.

Any "hudna" is short and just to last until they can kill all the Jews and take back "greater Palestine".

So, a "defeated people" or calls to annihilate a people.

Seems that the latter is the substantially more dangerous one, and it has been repeated again and again, whereas the "defeated" quote is old and outdated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Recursion Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-08-09 06:09 PM
Response to Reply #40
44. Wrong -- Hamas explicitly does not want to kill the Jewish population of Israel
They're on record multiple times on this and I'll be more than willing to find you instances of it if you actually haven't seen them. Hamas wants a single Islamist state in all of Israel and Palestine in which Jews and Christians pay a jizyah, and their leadership has been clear that they don't see this happening any time soon.

No Palestinian movement of any note has planned or threatened to actually remove or kill the Jewish population of Israel since 1973, as far as I know (though if I'm wrong please tell me). Lots of groups have called for something like "Israel being wiped off the map"; I think that has often been wrongly interpreted as calling for the death or deportation of all Israeli Jews. But the "into the sea" movement is dead, thankfully.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProgressiveMuslim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-08-09 06:45 PM
Response to Reply #44
46. Amazing that in all these years, Arabs have never learned how to play the game.
Look at Israel... they say ALL THE RIGHT WORDS... and do exactly as they damn well please.

They don't HAVE a charter...
They have a Supreme Court, which they tout, but ignore whenever convenient...

Ceasefire? Israel is THRILLED to consider a ceasefire... then they keep on shooting, and WILL do so until they have killed enough people to satisfy their machismo and reach whatever goal they actually have...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
azurnoir Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Jan-07-09 11:03 PM
Response to Original message
20. Probably one of the best articles on Gaza I have seen here
check it out needs to be read also some very interesting things on Taba

How Israel brought Gaza to the brink of humanitarian catastrophe

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=124x240494
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Wed May 01st 2024, 11:30 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Israel/Palestine Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC