American Media Distortion on Palestine

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by swampspring, Jul 15, 2014.

  1. nolagator
    Offline

    nolagator Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2014
    Messages:
    388
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings Received:
    +222
    So OB,

    What would you do? Split Israel up again? Who owns this land? How far back do you want go?

    If Kurdistan becomes a country but some Shites live their can they claim it's theirs? Iraq was a made up country. And how are counties formed?

    The Palestinians want it all. And like I said before, what is the Dome of the Rock built on?
  2. orangeblueorangeblue
    Offline

    orangeblueorangeblue Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    56,515
    Likes Received:
    556
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,524
    That's a delicate question - when the original Palestinian borders were proposed, I believe that Jews represented ~ 23% of the population but were apportioned 80%+ of the land. Over time those demographics have changed, so the question remains largely a matter of what land goes to whom.

    As to who "owns" the land, that's also largely an irrelevant question. If you go back to 1920s, it was basically the British Empire. If you go back before then it was the Ottoman Empire. Zionism threw a very different wrench into a region disrupted by Western partitioning.

    A few muddled questions here.

    Self-determination dictates that a people can control themselves in their own state, so for question #1, the answer is basically yes. It's essentially the ethos that made the secession of the South by all means a valid enterprise, history nothwithstanding.

    Iraq was a made up country. That's true. I'm not sure what you're point is here.

    As for how countries are formed, technically they are formed by congruent peoples claiming land and then establishing government that suits the interests of those people. That's not the case in most of the Mandate territories and certainly not the case in Israel, where very little consideration was given to the demographics of the area at the time.

    And so does Israel. And now you see the problem.
  3. nolagator
    Offline

    nolagator Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2014
    Messages:
    388
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings Received:
    +222
    You agree it's hard to determine who owns the land.

    In the past, he who controls the land owns the land.

    My point is the Palestinians don't want a homeland, they want Israel with Jerusalem.

    Most people would agree to give the Palestinians a homeland if they would agree to accept Israel.
    Last edited: Jul 16, 2014
  4. uftaipan
    Online

    uftaipan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2007
    Messages:
    3,914
    Likes Received:
    211
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Kabul, Afghanistan
    Ratings Received:
    +1,016
    My guess, since you're not getting an immediate answer, is that he's referring to the fact that Arafat was an Egyptian, despite the fact that he played up to being a "Palestinian."
    Well, it's not an argument really. I'm sure you understand that Arabs did not "occupy" the land we now call Israel until the 7th Century CE. They traded there, of course, but did not arrive in force to settle the land until shortly after the death of their prophet. Archaelogical evidence suggests that the Jews lived there about 2000 years previous to that. Few historians would dispute that.

    I think you might be confusing arguments about who the "indigenous" people are. The Arab argument is basically that they are the people who have always lived there. The Jews came, went, and came again, but the indigenous "Palestinian" people were the true stewards of the land. In this argument, they aren't really "Arabs" per se, it's just that they accepted Islam so long ago and Islam has tenants that essentially make you into an Arab (one has to take an Arab name, speak Arabic, adopt an Arab dress and diet, etc).

    And to that point, prior to the Arab conquests there were indeed other people who lived there and weren't Jewish. Take that one story from the New Testament where Jesus drives the spirits out of a possessed man into a herd of pigs who thence throw themselves off of a cliff . The townspeople who owned the pigs get all upset and drive Jesus and his disciples off. A casual reader would just assume the people who lived in the town were Jewish, since all of Judea was Jewish, right? Except why would Jews own pigs? Clearly, this was some other ethnic group who lived there, and the author felt no need to comment on it because it was so commonplace. That's an interpretation anyway.

    I personally cannot ignore, however, that this whole "Palestinian" tag is nothing short of propaganda to claim that indigenous position, which of course gives them the moral right to the land if nothing else. Before 1947, a "Palestinian" was actually the term in common use for a Jew who lived there; otherwise, you were an "Arab" or "Turk" or "Circassian" or whatever.

    If the Arabs living there were to call themselves Arabs, then it begs the question of how did the Arabs get there. And if they arrived by conquest, which they did, it undermines the moral authority of their narrative about being displaced by the evil conquering European Jews. Because if the Jews were simply taking back lands stolen from them by the Arabs ... and so on and so forth.

    The "Palestinian" narrative is very similar in that regard (and just as disingenuous) as the Lebanese Christians referring to themselves as "Phoenicians" in order to set themselves apart as the indigenous people vice the evil invading Arab Muslims. Another example was during the Balkans Crisis of the early 90s. The Muslims living in Bosnia claimed the narrative and moral high ground by calling themselves “Bosnians” while those evil “Serbs” and “Croats” were clearly the invaders. Calling themselves what they were – the descendants of Turks (actual invaders) – would not have played as well, obviously.

    The truth is, nobody knows who was "there first." In no country in the world, probably, is it true that the "indigenous" are still ruling it. Human history is replete with invasions, displacements, massacres, occupations, and so on going back to Og's tribe wanting Plarg's cave because it was closer to the stream. The fact is that land belongs to the people with the means and will to defend it, and as cold as that sounds, anyone who says differently is selling something.
    • Informative Informative x 2
    • Like Like x 1
  5. Lawdog88
    Offline

    Lawdog88 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    30,061
    Likes Received:
    468
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Inside the War Room, No Name City, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,551

    Actually, the Israelis are willing to share part of the pie.

    The Palestinians are not.

    And perhaps now you see the problem.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  6. orangeblueorangeblue
    Offline

    orangeblueorangeblue Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    56,515
    Likes Received:
    556
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,524
    This is demonstrably, historically untrue, though.
  7. orangeblueorangeblue
    Offline

    orangeblueorangeblue Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    56,515
    Likes Received:
    556
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,524
  8. 92gator
    Offline

    92gator Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2007
    Messages:
    5,820
    Likes Received:
    276
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +769
    Something about Israel and the Sinai Peninsula srpings to mind....
  9. orangeblueorangeblue
    Offline

    orangeblueorangeblue Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    56,515
    Likes Received:
    556
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,524
    If that's the case then his comment makes even less sense out of context.

    I think this is flawed for a couple of reasons. One, because there is clearly what we could call an "indigenous" right to land owed to several groups (or at least a recognized one, more on that in a bit), some of which presently do not have access to that land at all or have that land owned by another entity.

    Secondly because it seems you're caught up in the semantics (or Semitics?) of the designated nom du jour. There are two Semitic groups who have lived in the land for centuries and one has a recognized state, the other doesn't.

    Finally, because I don't agree that there is an inherent indigenous right to land anyway. If - per your argument earlier - the notion of "might is right" as the final arbiter of self-determination is correct, then it plays no role whatsoever. If China were to come in and conquer the region, then Israel would be Chinese.

    Again, getting caught up in the Semantics further ignores that there were non-Jewish Semitic people there long before any Islamic conquest.

    I think you're making a practical observation here rather than a moral one.
  10. Lawdog88
    Offline

    Lawdog88 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    30,061
    Likes Received:
    468
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Inside the War Room, No Name City, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,551

    If you mean that, the Jews are not going to leave Israel, and that the Palestinians will not recognize Israel's right to exist, then yes, that is demonstrably, historically true.
  11. orangeblueorangeblue
    Offline

    orangeblueorangeblue Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    56,515
    Likes Received:
    556
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,524
    Given that nobody has asked the Jews to leave Israel and Palestinians are fighting for something that does not preclude Israel's right to exist, this is an interesting deflection.
  12. nolagator
    Offline

    nolagator Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2, 2014
    Messages:
    388
    Likes Received:
    33
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings Received:
    +222
    O&B,

    Where have you been? The two sticking points are Jerusalem and Israel's right to exist.
  13. AzCatFan
    Offline

    AzCatFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    7,496
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +515
    Netanyanu is a complete hawk. If someone is going to push the button, it's Benji, according to a family member I have in Israel. He doesn't want a two-state solution because deep down, I don't think Netanyanu believes peace is possible with the Palestinians.

    But it hasn't always been this way, and historically, the Palestinians have never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity for peace. The biggest, and perhaps most recent example is when Clinton held peace talks with Arafat and Barak. Israel was all-in on the Clinton accords, as was Arafat. Problem was, the Palestinians back in the ME were not, and instead of accepting the peace agreement where a Palestinian state was created and Palestines got about 90% of what Arafat asked for, they launched the second Infitada! Arafat's negotiations also cost the PLO its power, which is why we are dealing with Hamas instead today.

    The Israelis have been complicit in keeping the fighting up, no doubt. But the Palestinians deserve a lot of blame, and historically, the lion's share, in my opinion. And today, the many Israelis, including many in power, have had enough, and don't believe peace is possible.
  14. orangeblueorangeblue
    Offline

    orangeblueorangeblue Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    56,515
    Likes Received:
    556
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,524
    Jerusalem, yes. Israel's right to exist? No. There's a reason it's called a two-state solution, and Netanyahu - despite lip service to the contrary - effectively said that was never really going to happen anyway. Even Hamas (of all groups) has said the 1967 borders would be sufficient. That has always been Israel's sticking point.
  15. GatorBen
    Offline

    GatorBen Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2007
    Messages:
    6,452
    Likes Received:
    338
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings Received:
    +1,411
    To be fair, the 1967 boundaries question ropes in the Jerusalem question as well.

    While Israelis were certainly moving into East Jerusalem in large numbers before the war (most of the Palestinian residents fled because of violence during the 1948-1949 fighting), it without question remained legally Palestinian territory. During the Six Day War Israel formally captured East Jerusalem and purported to annex it (and still maintains that it has done so to this day), although internationally I'm not aware of anyone who recognizes Israel's annexation of East Jerusalem.
  16. orangeblueorangeblue
    Offline

    orangeblueorangeblue Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    56,515
    Likes Received:
    556
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,524
    I didn't dispute that Jerusalem was a major point of contention, just this notion that Palestine would only accept a world wherein there is no Israel.
  17. Lawdog88
    Offline

    Lawdog88 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    30,061
    Likes Received:
    468
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Inside the War Room, No Name City, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,551

    I agree that the Palestinians have always deflected on this point.
  18. orangeblueorangeblue
    Offline

    orangeblueorangeblue Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    56,515
    Likes Received:
    556
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,524
    I realize that's some odd attempt at a clever quip, but it doesn't even make sense.
  19. Lawdog88
    Offline

    Lawdog88 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    30,061
    Likes Received:
    468
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Location:
    Inside the War Room, No Name City, FL
    Ratings Received:
    +1,551
    If you are not understanding the significance of the Palestinians' refusal to recognize the right of Israel to exist, it certainly isn't very clever of you to argue that there is any real possibility of a two-state existence.
    • Agree Agree x 1
  20. orangeblueorangeblue
    Offline

    orangeblueorangeblue Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2007
    Messages:
    56,515
    Likes Received:
    556
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +2,524
    Considering both sides have publicly stated it and that's presently what Palestinians are asking for, my apologies for not finding this to be a cogent point.

Share This Page