How can Israeli settlers feel so entitled to land they basically snatched

[henslee]

from someone else... and very recently at that? I mean as a displaced people, don't they see the hypocracy?

[Swede]

1. Kinda like Californians.

Wouldn't you agree?

[henslee]

6. Yeah but if you want to pursue that perspective... we can single

out every state. I'm talking modern history/society in which laws and soveriegnty are respected.

[Swede]

9. That's what I was getting at.

To the victor go the spoils. Always have,always will.

[henslee]

11. But the California Indians have casinos now... and its all good.

[Spinzonner]

10. Yeah

and about those Mexicans who displaced Idians from their land.

And about those Indians who interferred with the Saber-Tooth Tiger's stewardship of the land.

[henslee]

13. talking about CA Indians.....

Here is a great book about the tragic fate of the CA Indians...

http://dogbert.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=458651902

[Coastie for Truth]

27. The Ohlone Muwekma got a worse deal

for San Francisco then the deal for Manhattan. Junipero Serra was a racist crook.

[Coastie for Truth]

25. Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo

There is a Mexican-American political movement that maintains that the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo is illegal - and that the land seized by the US under the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo still belongs to Mexico and to the Native Americans (Kumeyaay, Ohlone), and the San Miguel del Vado Land Grant holders, among many others.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Guadalupe-Hidalgo

One of the smears by the Schwarzenegger people against Cruze Bustamonte was that he once belonged to a student group that questioned the legality of the Treaty.


So, "Kinda like Californians" is neither facetious nor a joke.

"From here in the lands of the Ohlone Muwekma Nation"

[notadmblnd]

2. This is a subject you cant have an honest discussion about

here on DU. There are certain individiuals that show up and proceed with the anti semite name calling as soon as someone says something they percieve as being against Israel. It's a shame.. but it's true.

[knowbody0]

5. especially when dialog would be the peaceful solution

it is pathetic the subject is taboo. no one understands the situation because there is never debate, only bombs.

[henslee]

8. I'm a semite and I honestly think that settlers have to step up to the

plate and in the face of all the tensions in the ME, set a talmudic example.

[notadmblnd]

12. like I said, there are certain individuals

but you'll know them when they show up, and I'm about 99% sure that they'll be here soon.

p.s. good on you for having an open mind.

[PSPS]

3. Religion

Religion is always the problem.

[Spinzonner]

4. It's only other people who are hypocritical

never oneself.

Besides, they're on a mission from God.

[no_hypocrisy]

16. To them it isn't hypocrisy b/c they believe that the land ALWAYS belonged

to the Jews, never to the Palestinian "interloper/squatters". They trace it back to God allegedly giving the land of Israel (no deed description with metes and bounds available) to Abraham. Now here's where it gets interesting. According to the law of that time, the oldest son inherited from the father. The controversy is this: technically, Ismael, son of Abraham and the handmaiden, Hamar, should have inherited from Abraham (thus, Israel in the Estate) as he was born before Isaac. Ismael allegedly inherited Israel for the Islamic faith. Conversely, Isaac allegedly inherited Israel, not Ismael, as he was the eldest son of the marriage of Abraham and Sarah (Ismael technically being illegitimate once Isaac came on the scene).

So long story short: because Isaac allegedly is the legitimate heir of Abraham, he inherited Israel on behalf of the Jews. End of story. Therefore, there is no hypocrisy as the land in eyes of the orthodoxy is theirs, always has been, always will be.

[Spinzonner]

19. I'm waiting for the DNA paternity test results

[manic expression]

7. I completely agree with you

You are 100% correct.

However, get your flame-suit on, this might get ugly soon.

[madrchsod]

14. wrong forum

but how far do we go back in time to claim land that may or may not have been the tribe of the Israeli semites? there are sites in Saudi Arabia that go back to the old testament..abraham is the father of the three religions in the area. the state of israel was given to the jewish people after ww2 because for some reason the west thought it was the right thing to do...it hasn`t worked out that way for the people who lived there.

[Geoff R. Casavant]

15. Not a flame, but I disagree

with your characterization of a snatch. Most of Israel was originally set aside under a UK mandate following WWII. In 1948 the UK essentially pulled out and said in effect, let them fight for it, whoever wins gets it. All the smart money was on the Palestinians, since they had the weapons and more people. Surprise, the Israelis pulled off an upset.

Then, in 1967, the Arab world (in the form of Egypt) invaded Israel to try to take it back. Israel beat them back and kept territory as spoils and as a protective buffer.

Not what I would call a snatch, unless my history is wrong, which, since I am only passingly familiar with the history of the region, I am more than ready to reconsider.

Peace.

[Jim Sagle]

26. I think you're on the right track, Geoff.

[flyingfysh]

17. they think God gave them the land

They think God gave them the land, so they are entitled to grab it. God has yet to file the proper deeds or anything.

[shelley806]

18. Why was this thread moved?? I went to copy a quote that I read today

from the now deceased Robin Cook during his resignation speech, and when I got back, the post had vanished to the second page, showed '0'
posts (when it had at least 8 before), and I was re-directed here. This essentially ends conversation. It makes me extremely angry. This is a MAJOR issue that needs to be discussed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/2859431.stm
Excerpt from Robin Cook's Resignation Speech in protest of the Iraq War
"Ironically, it is only because Iraq's military forces are so weak that we can even contemplate its invasion. Some advocates of conflict claim that Saddam's forces are so weak, so demoralised and so badly equipped that the war will be over in a few days. We cannot base our military strategy on the assumption that Saddam is weak and at the same time justify pre-emptive action on the claim that he is a threat. Iraq probably has no weapons of mass destruction in the commonly understood sense of the term - namely a credible device capable of being delivered against a strategic city target. It probably still has biological toxins and battlefield chemical munitions, but it has had them since the 1980s when US companies sold Saddam anthrax agents and the then British Government approved chemical and munitions factories. Why is it now so urgent that we should take military action to disarm a military capacity that has been there for 20 years, and which we helped to create? Why is it necessary to resort to war this week, while Saddam's ambition to complete his weapons programme is blocked by the presence of UN inspectors? Israeli breaches Only a couple of weeks ago, Hans Blix told the Security Council that the key remaining disarmament tasks could be completed within months. I have heard it said that Iraq has had not months but 12 years in which to complete disarmament, and that our patience is exhausted. Yet it is more than 30 years since resolution 242 called on Israel to withdraw from the occupied territories. We do not express the same impatience with the persistent refusal of Israel to comply. I welcome the strong personal commitment that the prime minister has given to middle east peace, but Britain's positive role in the middle east does not redress the strong sense of injustice throughout the Muslim world at what it sees as one rule for the allies of the US and another rule for the rest. Nor is our credibility helped by the appearance that our partners in Washington are less interested in disarmament than they are in regime change in Iraq. That explains why any evidence that inspections may be showing progress is greeted in Washington not with satisfaction but with consternation: it reduces the case for war."

For discussion on Cook's death, see:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1681767

[Violet_Crumble]

20. It would have gotten moved here because the OP was about the I/P conflict.

n/t

[shelley806]

21. So one of the major problems in the extremely problematic world gets

shoved into some back room? That makes a lot of sense!

[newyorican]

22. I'll not only get moved...

it'll get locked because the OP *now* violates the rules of this forum (which it was moved to).

Open discussion of this topic is not allowed here. Catch-22.

If you want to engage in open discussion about this issue, it won't be on DU.

[shelley806]

24. WHY?!..n/t

[bemildred]

23. While it's a nice idea, there is little evidence that suggests

that people in general are much guided by morality or ethics or even law when it comes to property issues. They mostly feel entitled to what they manage to grab and hold on to.

And generally, people see what they choose to see and ignore the rest.

[Colorado Blue]

28. Considering that the Jewish people were displaced from

what is now called Israel in the first place, it doesn't seem all that hypocritical now does it. And under the laws of the time, the original settlers worked with Ottoman, British and ARAB leadership to build their homeland and in my opinion, have more right to their land than most of the people on this planet including the good citizens of the United States - the vast majority of whom are or are descended from refugees and immigrants.

Secondly, Jewish people have lived continuously in this region for thousands of years. The majority of Israeli Jews are of Middle Eastern descent. Over 900,000 came there from Arab cities, ancient Jewish communities, which were expelled after 1948.

The Jewish homeland was already a reality by 1948. Supposedly the entire Palestine Mandate, which included Jordan as well as the land of modern Israel and the "occupied territories" was to have been the Jewish homeland. The 1948 partition resulted instead in a tiny strip - which was immediately attacked by 5 Arab armies. Israel today, going by the "Green Line" boundaries, is only about 6 miles wide in places and most consists of the Negev Desert. We're not talking about California, people - the entire country is smaller than Lake Erie. The occupied territories were, as pointed out in an earlier thread, taken during the 1967 war and serve as a buffer zone and from a military standpoint, it makes absolute sense to have taken at least the West Bank. Even in Gaza, the settlements are hardly all bad: they provide jobs for Arabs as well as Jews, and it will be interesting to see what happens to those enterprises and those workers after disengagement.

The fact that Israel has survived at all is a miracle. The straggling remnants of the Holocaust were even prevented by British blockades from entering as they had been throughout WWII - refugee ships before and after the Holocaust were fired upon and even sunk. Given the realities of life for the Jewish people, the fact that we have managed to establish this tiny and embattled homeland should not strike progressives either as strange or as unjust. What is certain is this: extremism and violence breed more of the same - and this has been going on in what is now Israel since at least the 1920's. Moreover the violence in the Middle East needs to be seen in a broader context: it is hardly limited to, or caused by, Israel.

People who complain that critics of Israel are frequently attacked for being antisemitic should look in the mirror. Some of the criticisms of Israeli policy are just, especially those which are in line with criticisms of any modern nation-state. But others seem rooted in irrationality.

Many of the comments about Israel are flat out ignorant and they make me uncomfortable. At the very least, much of the criticism seems founded in simple ignorance, which can be rectified by study and empathy; but some does seem to have darker motivations - and this will certainly evoke a strong response, and rightly so.

[undergroundrailroad]

29. Locking per I/P guidelines.

Not a recent article or op-ed.