Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Palestinians are not the world's first dispossessed people, but they are the first to be asked to legitimize what happened to them.

OMG, there is nothing unique about their situation. The only thing unique about it is that they cannot tolerate living with, beside or in another country -- Israel. Can you imagine if people behaved this way when Pakistan was created, or any of the other countries that were created or dissolved in just the last 100 years? It's a ridiculous argument.

For the Pakistan situation to be equivalent, the British would have had to promise the same land to the Hindus and Pakistanis. Then they would have had to divide the land up so that Muslims got half, and Hindus got half, despite the fact that Hindus outnumbered Muslims 10:1. This would have required the displacement of about 390 million Hindus from their homes instead of the modest 7 million Hindus.

So even given the more equitable division of India, they still had four wars: 47, 65, 71 and 99. They had decades of communal riots. Mahatma Gahndi was assassinated, and so was Indira Gandhi. Again to make the situation comparable today, India would be occupying Pakistan and Bangladesh. They would strictly control the goods and people going into and out of these two countries. And if Pakistanis did so much as throw rocks in protest, they would be considered terrorists.

Why does it have to be equivalent to be relevant? The point is that borders are not set in stone. Countries have come and gone throughout history. Being displaced is nothing new. I don't know how anyone Americans can see it otherwise, since -- as I've said in other threads -- this country is built on the hard work of the displaced. Most people here have roots somewhere else, no?

Does it make it right? We have to be better than History, we don't go around repeating slavery, segregation, holocaust, colonialism on the basis that that's how things were done before. We learn from our mistakes, we grow to be civilized people and once we know better we do better. Occupation, Colonization, Holocaust, you name in, in all cases, they tend to work out badly for everyone involved, whether you get classed as 'us' or 'them'.

You're missing my point -- which is that the millions (countless really) of people throughout history who have been displaced and whose countries have been redefined under their feet have not resorted to endless terrorism and war as a response to that. But you are using it to justify violence against Israel that will never end, which in turn means the killing of innocent Palestinian civilians, including children. That is an insane response IMO.

And you're using it to justify land grabs and endless subjugation of one people by another! Why SHOULD violence against Israel end when it never admitted any wrongdoing toward the Palestinians? When respected historians in Israel can casually say things like, yes, we expelled half a million Palestinians but it was necessary for the creation of the Jewish state so it was OK for them to be expelled, it was for a good cause. Can you imagine ANY other country saying it? Justifying it?

I'm not doing anything of the sort. I'm not talking about Israel at all -- I'm talking about what I find unconvincing in the Palestinian side of this argument.

But how do you unhook the "Palestinian side of the argument" from the root cause? What would you have Palestinians do to end the land grabs, the oppression, the discrimination, and oh yeah, the endless demonization of the armed resistance against an oppressive occupier? Sing songs around the campfire?

Well, I'm certainly not an expert on the situation and I have posted as much already, but it sure seems to me that Israel is responding to Palestinian provocation.

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Palestinians are not the world's first dispossessed people, but they are the first to be asked to legitimize what happened to them.

OMG, there is nothing unique about their situation. The only thing unique about it is that they cannot tolerate living with, beside or in another country -- Israel. Can you imagine if people behaved this way when Pakistan was created, or any of the other countries that were created or dissolved in just the last 100 years? It's a ridiculous argument.

For the Pakistan situation to be equivalent, the British would have had to promise the same land to the Hindus and Pakistanis. Then they would have had to divide the land up so that Muslims got half, and Hindus got half, despite the fact that Hindus outnumbered Muslims 10:1. This would have required the displacement of about 390 million Hindus from their homes instead of the modest 7 million Hindus.

So even given the more equitable division of India, they still had four wars: 47, 65, 71 and 99. They had decades of communal riots. Mahatma Gahndi was assassinated, and so was Indira Gandhi. Again to make the situation comparable today, India would be occupying Pakistan and Bangladesh. They would strictly control the goods and people going into and out of these two countries. And if Pakistanis did so much as throw rocks in protest, they would be considered terrorists.

Why does it have to be equivalent to be relevant? The point is that borders are not set in stone. Countries have come and gone throughout history. Being displaced is nothing new. I don't know how anyone Americans can see it otherwise, since -- as I've said in other threads -- this country is built on the hard work of the displaced. Most people here have roots somewhere else, no?

Does it make it right? We have to be better than History, we don't go around repeating slavery, segregation, holocaust, colonialism on the basis that that's how things were done before. We learn from our mistakes, we grow to be civilized people and once we know better we do better. Occupation, Colonization, Holocaust, you name in, in all cases, they tend to work out badly for everyone involved, whether you get classed as 'us' or 'them'.

You're missing my point -- which is that the millions (countless really) of people throughout history who have been displaced and whose countries have been redefined under their feet have not resorted to endless terrorism and war as a response to that. But you are using it to justify violence against Israel that will never end, which in turn means the killing of innocent Palestinian civilians, including children. That is an insane response IMO.

And you're using it to justify land grabs and endless subjugation of one people by another! Why SHOULD violence against Israel end when it never admitted any wrongdoing toward the Palestinians? When respected historians in Israel can casually say things like, yes, we expelled half a million Palestinians but it was necessary for the creation of the Jewish state so it was OK for them to be expelled, it was for a good cause. Can you imagine ANY other country saying it? Justifying it?

I'm not doing anything of the sort. I'm not talking about Israel at all -- I'm talking about what I find unconvincing in the Palestinian side of this argument.

But how do you unhook the "Palestinian side of the argument" from the root cause? What would you have Palestinians do to end the land grabs, the oppression, the discrimination, and oh yeah, the endless demonization of the armed resistance against an oppressive occupier? Sing songs around the campfire?

Well, I'm certainly not an expert on the situation and I have posted as much already, but it sure seems to me that Israel is responding to Palestinian provocation.

I agree about the bolded part. Clearly, the best thing you've said all night

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The Palestinians are not the world's first dispossessed people, but they are the first to be asked to legitimize what happened to them.

OMG, there is nothing unique about their situation. The only thing unique about it is that they cannot tolerate living with, beside or in another country -- Israel. Can you imagine if people behaved this way when Pakistan was created, or any of the other countries that were created or dissolved in just the last 100 years? It's a ridiculous argument.

For the Pakistan situation to be equivalent, the British would have had to promise the same land to the Hindus and Pakistanis. Then they would have had to divide the land up so that Muslims got half, and Hindus got half, despite the fact that Hindus outnumbered Muslims 10:1. This would have required the displacement of about 390 million Hindus from their homes instead of the modest 7 million Hindus.

So even given the more equitable division of India, they still had four wars: 47, 65, 71 and 99. They had decades of communal riots. Mahatma Gahndi was assassinated, and so was Indira Gandhi. Again to make the situation comparable today, India would be occupying Pakistan and Bangladesh. They would strictly control the goods and people going into and out of these two countries. And if Pakistanis did so much as throw rocks in protest, they would be considered terrorists.

Why does it have to be equivalent to be relevant? The point is that borders are not set in stone. Countries have come and gone throughout history. Being displaced is nothing new. I don't know how anyone Americans can see it otherwise, since -- as I've said in other threads -- this country is built on the hard work of the displaced. Most people here have roots somewhere else, no?

Does it make it right? We have to be better than History, we don't go around repeating slavery, segregation, holocaust, colonialism on the basis that that's how things were done before. We learn from our mistakes, we grow to be civilized people and once we know better we do better. Occupation, Colonization, Holocaust, you name in, in all cases, they tend to work out badly for everyone involved, whether you get classed as 'us' or 'them'.

You're missing my point -- which is that the millions (countless really) of people throughout history who have been displaced and whose countries have been redefined under their feet have not resorted to endless terrorism and war as a response to that. But you are using it to justify violence against Israel that will never end, which in turn means the killing of innocent Palestinian civilians, including children. That is an insane response IMO.

And you're using it to justify land grabs and endless subjugation of one people by another! Why SHOULD violence against Israel end when it never admitted any wrongdoing toward the Palestinians? When respected historians in Israel can casually say things like, yes, we expelled half a million Palestinians but it was necessary for the creation of the Jewish state so it was OK for them to be expelled, it was for a good cause. Can you imagine ANY other country saying it? Justifying it?

I'm not doing anything of the sort. I'm not talking about Israel at all -- I'm talking about what I find unconvincing in the Palestinian side of this argument.

But how do you unhook the "Palestinian side of the argument" from the root cause? What would you have Palestinians do to end the land grabs, the oppression, the discrimination, and oh yeah, the endless demonization of the armed resistance against an oppressive occupier? Sing songs around the campfire?

Well, I'm certainly not an expert on the situation and I have posted as much already, but it sure seems to me that Israel is responding to Palestinian provocation.

I agree about the bolded part. Clearly, the best thing you've said all night

I'm just trying to explain my POV. I realize people can be bitches on any subject on DCUM and that's your right, but you certainly aren't helping your case.

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
You're missing my point -- which is that the millions (countless really) of people throughout history who have been displaced and whose countries have been redefined under their feet have not resorted to endless terrorism and war as a response to that. But you are using it to justify violence against Israel that will never end, which in turn means the killing of innocent Palestinian civilians, including children. That is an insane response IMO.

I'm not sure where you studied history, but there are plenty of examples of people fighting after they have been either displaced or occupied. Right, now Gaza and the West Bank are occupied and are fighting for independence. At one time, the US fought for independence. The Irish used armed struggle to gain independence from Great Britain. Kashmiris struggle even now. Pakistan and India fought multiple wars. Africa is nearly drowning in the blood of conflicts in which displacement was one provocation.

I'm coming at this from the vantage point of an American. America is where people go when they can no longer live where they are from. Like most Americans, my heritage is a mixed bag of people from all over. Most Americans have ancestors who came here to make a better life for themselves and their children because where they lived was intolerable. They didn't dig their heels in and bomb the hell out of other people. They came here. I don't know how anyone who understands the American psyche can be moved by the arguments of the Palestinians. It does not justify their violent provocation against Israel IMO.

Do I undertand correctly that your solution is the mass migration of Palestinians to the United States?

Ha ha, no, I must not be expressing myself very clearly. I'm saying that as an American -- and by that I mean, the America that embraces people from all over the world who come here because they are displaced or are seeking a better life for themselves, the America in which almost everyone was displaced from somewhere at some point, the America which is in a constant state of flux with people and cultures changing the mix -- I see nothing in the Palestinian argument that justifies their continued violence and provocation against Israel. Their reasons why, IMO, do not justify the mess they're making of their own situation. The violence is not Israel attacking them out of the blue -- it is in response to their continued provocation. And their continued provocation is because the country that is Israel was created and now exists where they want Palestine to exist. Well, I don't get it. We have all different kinds of people coming here and changing our neighborhoods and our culture all the time. We deal. We adapt. We embrace it. (At least I was taught to.) This is life in America. It doesn't belong to any one "kind" of person. So as an American with that perspective, I don't get what is so special about the Palestinians that they can't accept Jews in "their" land. Why can't they live in peace, in Israel? Or live in peace, alongside Israel?

Anonymous wrote:
Ha ha, no, I must not be expressing myself very clearly. I'm saying that as an American -- and by that I mean, the America that embraces people from all over the world who come here because they are displaced or are seeking a better life for themselves, the America in which almost everyone was displaced from somewhere at some point, the America which is in a constant state of flux with people and cultures changing the mix -- I see nothing in the Palestinian argument that justifies their continued violence and provocation against Israel. Their reasons why, IMO, do not justify the mess they're making of their own situation. The violence is not Israel attacking them out of the blue -- it is in response to their continued provocation. And their continued provocation is because the country that is Israel was created and now exists where they want Palestine to exist. Well, I don't get it. We have all different kinds of people coming here and changing our neighborhoods and our culture all the time. We deal. We adapt. We embrace it. (At least I was taught to.) This is life in America. It doesn't belong to any one "kind" of person. So as an American with that perspective, I don't get what is so special about the Palestinians that they can't accept Jews in "their" land. Why can't they live in peace, in Israel? Or live in peace, alongside Israel?

Anonymous wrote:You might want to listen to what I have to say, because I am trying to explain why Americans are not moved to support your case the way you (or others) keep saying they are in other parts of the world. It's because of what goes into making the American psyche what it is -- namely, being made up of all kinds of people from all parts of the world in a country that is constantly changing as a result of world turmoil. But peace be with you too Spock.

Anonymous wrote:You might want to listen to what I have to say, because I am trying to explain why Americans are not moved to support your case the way you (or others) keep saying they are in other parts of the world. It's because of what goes into making the American psyche what it is -- namely, being made up of all kinds of people from all parts of the world in a country that is constantly changing as a result of world turmoil. But peace be with you too Spock.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You might want to listen to what I have to say, because I am trying to explain why Americans are not moved to support your case the way you (or others) keep saying they are in other parts of the world. It's because of what goes into making the American psyche what it is -- namely, being made up of all kinds of people from all parts of the world in a country that is constantly changing as a result of world turmoil. But peace be with you too Spock.

Has it occurred to you that this woman you are talking to could be American? Or that some of the other posters are American?

Muslima wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You might want to listen to what I have to say, because I am trying to explain why Americans are not moved to support your case the way you (or others) keep saying they are in other parts of the world. It's because of what goes into making the American psyche what it is -- namely, being made up of all kinds of people from all parts of the world in a country that is constantly changing as a result of world turmoil. But peace be with you too Spock.

You might not, but many Americans are supporting the Palestinian case and people all around the world are waking up. In the past 2 weeks, hundreds of marches have been going around the world, here in the US with tens of thousands of people marching for the freedom of Palestine. Americans are moved, the american government not so much. What you have to realize is that to ask a people to live quietly, while they have no justice and no freedom, is to ask them to live "peacefully" as slaves. "Peace" without justice or freedom is slavery. It's like asking a battered woman to live "peacefully" with her abuse. We all want the bloodshed to stop. But what about the daily humiliation and institutionalized oppression?

Consider this: If a woman is being raped, things would be a lot more "peaceful" if she didn't resist. But, asking her not to resist--just because her attacker is physically stronger--is asking her to accept her own abuse and oppression for the sake of "peace". This is what the world is asking Palestinians to do.

And sometimes what seems to the world as just ineffective tactics, like throwing a rock at a tank, is in fact an act of resistance. It is a powerful statement to the oppressor--and the world--that they refuse to be enslaved. That dignity and self-respect are even more beloved to them than their own lives. It is a statement that you can take their lives. But not their freedom. #freepalestine