Finn Again's Wake

The BBQ Pit
481

I’d like to dig this up to say that I found this terribly disappointing as I find myself becoming more and more sympathetic to ‘the other side’ when he “argues” (or rather rants and attacks blindly left and right), whereas you are convincing and present the kind of image Israel should have. That is tough minded, but fair minded. You represent the Israel that is admirable and makes one proud to support.

FinnAgain merely calls to mind the ranting and spin of the Pro Apartheid types and pro colonial, dirty wogs should be grateful types I have known.

And I’d like to be clear, while I can see the Arab point of view, I don’t believe Israel could have been born except via a bloody and painful birth, while I can’t abide for a whitewashing, I don’t particularly hold the history against it.

Of course at the same time, regarding the Arab side I find it astonishing that anyone finds their reaction in 1948 terribly surprising. (And I shall step up to say that much of the idiocy of the situation was due to idiot whankers in Whitehall imagining they could make contradictory and simultaneous promises to both the Arabs and Zionist representations in London and spin the whole thing for Empire)

I can’t say that any situation where large numbers of foreign colonizers / immigrants coming into a settled area en masse has not generated opposition and violent tensions.

482

Not in the way you’d think.

Then what was all that about deploring other nations’ refusal to accept them wholesale as refugees from their “Homeland”? If that wasn’t a plea for them to just clear out so that Israel can annex Palestine good and proper, then what was it?

You talk about Palestinians being driven out of what became Israel, but the topic you’re skating around is their being driven out of Palestine too. You sound like an arch Hindu nationalist satisfied with the wholesale expulsion of Muslims from India after the partition, and the marginalization of those remaining, with the added desire of driving them out of Pakistan and Bangladesh as well so that those lands can be redeemed and restored to India for its own lebensraum. Except that that view would be lunatic even by arch Hindu nationalist standards.

Same here. It’s especially depressing, though, to find what seems to be such a common attitude among Jews to the effect that “Finally, it’s our turn to do it to someone else!”

483

Is that really what they are doing, though? Getting their comeuppance? Or are they rabidly defending their very existence through all means necessary due to the deadly hatred they are surrounded by?

484

“All means necessarY”? And this “deadly hatred” is, what, just something innate in Arab genes, not something that Israel’s actions have done anything to actually foster? What lessons have they learned from their history?

Please. You’re helping illustrate the problem, at least. Look too long into the abyss, etc.

485

Hey, I’m presenting it from what I presume would be their POV. I’m under no illusions that there aren’t two sides to this conflict and that both are culpable in some pretty heinous actions towards one another.

And it seems neither of them are learning anything from their histories as they continue to kill each other in an endless cycle of death and revenge.

486

You’re not going to get through, I’m afraid. It’s clear that the Jewish immigration to the area dramatically boosted the standard of living and economic index, allowing what was a functional backwater to expand to unprecedented levels, dwarfing that of all other neighboring states. In that context, folks like the Grand Mufti whipped up the Arab riots of the 1920’s (which caused the formation of the Haganah). In 1929, again Arabs were enraged by Jews worshiping at the Western Wall, and the British sent in thugs in riot gear to kick some Jewish asses and prevent the Jews from setting up separate areas for men and women to pray, as is the Orthodox custom. After that, the Grand Mufti fomented another bit of rioting and violence which the British ignored. It was also at this time that the Hebron Massacre took place (after which the British forcibly removed most of the remaining Jews). Due to the Haganah’s policy of ‘restraint’, Irgun was formed as a splinter group to be something other than a defensive organization.

Following that, , there was of course the Arab Revolt of the 1930’s and the Grand Mufti, who had cemented his position as the main political force in Palestinian society (largely through murdering his rivals) as well as its main religious leader, crated a pact with the Nazis in order to ensure the extermination of all the Jews in the region and created al Futuwwah, the “Nazi Scouts”.

Against that backdrop it’s not confusing as to why events led to war despite the Zionists acceptance of Partition plans. Combine the worst racist and xenophobic drives to oppose any dirty-foreigners moving into your neighborhood with an actual alliance with the Nazis and a war in 198 that the Arab League announced would be one of extermination… and then fast forward to the '67 war and Israel’s offer to give back the territories in exchange for peace, which was met with the Three Noes (no peace, recognition of, or negotiation with Israel).

It’s not all that complicated. Certain folks who either don’t know or don’t care or do know but find the facts get in the way of their narratives, will try to present the early situation as if it was just a “cycle of violence” rather than identifying what was actually going on. It’s telling that Israel is at peace with both of its neighbors who wanted peace and offered the Palestinians their own sovereign state, billions in compensation for refuges, etc… in 2000-2001, that they turned down in favor of launching another war. But that doesn’t fit in with some narratives, and we hear (over and over and over) “Oh noez! Teh Joos are oppressing another people just as they’ve been oppressed, will they never learn/why must they be so vile/they’re Nazis!”

That some people try to excuse this whole process by deceptively tying Jewish immigration to Palestine with colonialism is predictable, but sad. In America, for example, it’s those types of folks who’d join various anti-immigrant organizations and talk about how Mexicans immigrants (legal or illegal) are the number one threat to the nation. Except not even they are batshit enough to claim that Brownsville is a ‘colony’ of Mexico. It’s a disgusting attitude, that when minority groups buy property and move into an area, that violence and rage against them is only to be expected because “they’re taking our jobs!” or “this just to be a nice town!” or whatever.
Even most American bigots would be ashamed to say that Mexicans immigrating and wanting to start new lives must inevitably lead to violence. But when it comes to Jews buying land from its owners and wanting self-determination after the sovereign of the region falls, the new sovereign explicitly states that it will help create a Jewish national home, and nobody else has legal ownership over the land that the Jews are living on? Well, then evidently it’s ‘okay’ to say that the Zionists should’ve expected a lil’ ol’ war of annihilation, even after the British Mandate had set up for the formation of a Jewish national home in the region in the first place.

~shrugs~

487

I love reading wmfellows’s attempts to rewrite the history of decolonization, in which Britain relinquished its possessions due a new sense of morality, while other (presumably immoral) imperial powers (i.e. France) had to have them wrested away.

The reality is that the British were forced to leave India thanks to a decades’ long resistance movement and got out barely in time to avoid a long and costly civil war. The history of the British Empire’s downfall beginning in the '40s has a far different flavor than our intrepid neo-historian wants to provide.

*"The Japanese attacks on the British and American possessions in the Pacific had an immediate and long-lasting impact on the British Empire. Churchill’s reaction to the entry of the United States into the war was that Britain was now assured of victory and the future of the Empire was safe,[123] but the manner in which the British rapidly surrendered in some of its colonies irreversibly altered Britain’s standing and prestige as an imperial power.[124][125] Most damaging of all was the fall of Singapore, which had previously been hailed as an impregnable fortress and the eastern equivalent of Gibraltar…

Though Britain and the Empire emerged victorious from the Second World War, the effects of the conflict were profound, both at home and abroad. Much of Europe, a continent that had dominated the world for several centuries, was now in ruins, and host to the armies of the United States and the Soviet Union, to whom the balance of global power had now shifted.[127] Britain was left virtually bankrupt, with insolvency only averted in 1946 after the negotiation of a $3.5 billion loan from the United States,[128] the last instalment of which was repaid in 2006…*

Anti-colonial movements were also gaining strength. The Brits do get credit for being smart enough to know, at least after messy involvements like retaking Malaya and giving up on an increasingly ugly situation in Palestine, that their days were numbered and an attempt to hold colonies would have been extremely expensive and ultimately doomed.

The idea that Britain decolonized because of superior morality is a joke. And it’s basically for prestige reasons that you’ve maintained a hold on the Falklands.

488

Eh, I think he just likes rewriting stuff. The British Mandate, whose very preamble opens with the statement that its purpose is to establish a Jewish national home, and which repeats that fact time and time again, echoed by the Balfour Declaration, is somehow ambiguous on that point. Even the British Empire’s own studies that found that virtually all of the economic growth in the region was due to Jewish immigration and investment don’t count, nor does common sense that immigration tied to massive capital will improve an area. And after all we know it’s a fallacy to point out that Arabs migrated to the Jewish areas to enjoy their economic prosperity, because, as we all know, the influx of people is what drives economic advancement. Which is why, naturally, Mexico City is one of the foremost economic powerhouses on the planet. To say nothing about how it was really to be expected that the Arab leadership would have racist objections to Jews moving into the area and would ally with the Nazis to kill them all. I mean, racism against immigrant groups is totally normal and to be expected. In fact, we can then blame the resulting violence on those damn immigrants, who really should have known better.

And the British, they were very moral about ending their colonialism. The fact that their forces and resources were depleted by WWII and they could no longer maintain control has nothing to do with it. The fact that the British empire tried to maintain control for the white minority in Southern Rhodesia, pretty much up until 1980, and thereby contributing to the rise of Mugabe? Well… obviously Britain had gotten moral in or around 1948 (if you don’t count capturing and imprisoning 10’s of thousand of Jews behind barbed wire and snipers…)
But anyways they’d gotten moral and obviously held on to Zimbabwe due to clerical oversight. Naturally.

Jake, China Town, yadda yadda.

489

April 1, 2011: FinnAgain enters Israeli diplomatic service.

April 2, 2011. Upper Volta, Gabon and Dalai Lama declare war against Israel.

490

Upper Volta? You’re a wee bit behind the times.

In 1984 that country adopted the name Burkina Faso, which translates to “land of honest people”. :smiley:

491

They’re not being driven out of Palestine, if by Palestine you mean “the West Bank and Gaza”, though. Some have manged to leave to pursue their lives elsewhere, but most of the people of the West Bank live in the same towns, villages and cities their families have for generations. The only difference is, since 1967, they’ve been living under Israeli occupation. As bad as the Israeli occupation has been for the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza, and it’s been bad for them, no question, they haven’t, for the most part, been displaced from their lands. The people in the Palestinian refugee camps, for the most part, are the people, or the descendants of the people, who lived in the area that’s now Israel, and who, after Israel was founded, fled to Lebanon, Syria, the West Bank (which was then part of Jordan), and so on.

492

That would appear to be the goal of those trying to justify squatting in those lands, while deploring the refusal of other Arab nations to take them in as refugees, wouldn’t it? That was the position I was addressing.

493

A pity they rejected Burkina Faso Latido, which translates to “land of honest people who worship Julie Andrews”.

494

Usually when people deplore the refusal of Arab nations to take in Palestinians, they’re talking about the 1949 refugees, not the residents of the West Bank. When these people fled their homes into places like Jordan and Lebanon, the governments of those countries forced them to stay in refugee camps. When people bring it up, it’s usually a “gotcha” to the Arab states, condemning their hypocrisy. It’s sort of saying “Jordan, Lebanon, Syria, you CLAIM to be so concerned about the Palestinians, but when Palestinians actually came to you looking for help, you treated them like shit.”

There aren’t serious plans to force Palestinians out of the West Bank. None of the major Israeli parties have that as part of their platform, and all of the major Israeli parties have endorsed a two state solution. The vast majority of Israelis support a two state solution. There are a few minor right wing parties that support annexing the West Bank and kicking all the Arabs out, but that’s a whacko fringe opinion, and it’s not going to happen.

Just as a side note, I find it really unsatisfying that we use the same term, “Palestinian”, for both those Arabs that fled Israel around the time of its founding and for those natives of the West Bank and Gaza who found themselves under Israeli occupation as a result of the '67 war. They’re really different groups of people, with different histories, and who want different things. Lumping them together just isn’t very useful, and implies a sort of uniformity that I don’t think really exists.

495

Unlike refering to people as “Jewish”, a grouping of people with a singular absence of variety.

496

You certainly have a point, even though I don’t know if “Jewish” is the best counterpoint to “Palestinian”. I’d say “Israeli” would be.

497

If they’re going to be the population of the future nation of Palestine, then what’'s the problem with calling them by that name? No country has a homogeneous cultural and historical background anyway, so why should they be different?

As for there being “no serious plans” to make the West Bank part of Israel, then what’s with all those so-called “settlements”? And what’s with how they’re getting built, and on whose land? That, and the routing of the wall, are the primary obstacles to peace, and the primary sources of the criticism of recent Israeli policy, as I think you know.

498

I know of no plans for the refugees in Jordan to be re-admitted into Palestine. Please enlighten me on this matter.

499

The state of Palestine can make its own laws about that. If, in fact, it were the topic of discussion here, which, as you know, it isn’t.

500

Perhaps. But then you’d be stuck explaining how being a member of the Jewish faith gives special preference for Israeli citizenship.