Palestinians should just give in and accept that America knows what is best for them. There is no need for them to have an entire country for themselves. Even if they were there first, they only existed in villages and colonies. There was no national unity among them.
They could be granted tiny sections of land in Israel where they can sell things tax-free and open up legal casinos and have bingo every night. They could be given a small monthly salary - hush money - by the Nation of Israel. They would waste their checks on alcohol and tobacco and forget all about where their land went. In a couple dozen years, it wont even be that big a deal. They would be allowed to go to schools and could have the same rights and benefits as Israeli citizens. Maybe, just to keep them kinda happy, they could be offered cheap, or even free college. The citizens of Israel will forget all about them in about 50 years or less. And the ancestors of the Palestinians won’t realize whatever heritage they had to begin with. It will just be glorious stories. They’ll be so happy because of the new prosperous and wonderful country they live in. How beautiful it would all be! Everyone would be happy!
. . . Either that, or Native Americans should start car bombing the United States.
It sure sounds like that, doesn’t it!? Yet this is exactly what the early United States did to Native Americans. Yet today, no one really even cares about that. The first part of the OP is not to literally suggest that the Palestinians give up. I’m trying to debate the relative similarities between what the US did many years ago, to what it is encouraging today.
Everyone seems to be happy about the modern configuration of the US. I in particular had a lovely time partying and gambling until 10:30am last weekend at the Hard Rock Casino on the Seminole Reservation. The entire situation is just eating away at me. I can’t figure out if it’s a good thing. Or a bad thing. Does the ends justify the means? Had the atrosities not been committed many years ago, I would not be enjoying this huge wonderful democracy today. But most Native Americans seem content with the agreement reached so long ago. I’m sure there are those that really hate it, but they’re not out car bombing or anything like that.
If the Palestinians were completely over-powered and forced into little reservations, would they not end up with what the US has right now? Little tiny “soveirgn” nations spread about the country. It sounds horrible. So that means what we have right here in this country is horrible. How can one be wrong, and the other be right?
Either the Palestinians should surrender and give in to the aggressors or the Native Americans should start resisting this oppression and take back their country! Neither of these seems like the right answer. But, logically, it seems like one or the other would have to be right.
Where am I ignorant?
Are you saying that the Palestinians have no right to the country in Israel, making the entire issue irrelevant? Or are you saying that the United States never forcefully stole land from Natives?
The Palestinians are not some indigenous Native-American-like group. They are the descendents of Egyptians, Jordanians and Syrians, many of them migrants from those nations who settled AFTER Israel was established as a state. They only started calling themselves “Palestinians” as a group in the Sixties; in the territories under Syrian control they thought of themselves as Southern Syrians; in those under Jordanian control they thought of themeselves as Jordanians. When the PLO and various resistance movements gained a foothold there became a national unity that evolved.
Before than, “Palestinian,” to many people, meant what we now know as “Israeli.” There was much talk of “Palestinian Jews,” when was the last time someone used that term?
Because the situation with the Israelis the Palestinians have absolutely nothing in common with the situation between EWuropean settlers and American Indians. Two very complex situations, and you obviously have not the education or ability to parse them.
It’s like saying, “well, Napoleon was exactly like Hitler!” Read yerself some history and some current events before shooting your mouth off.
Granted, the national identity of “Palistine” is a recent development, but there were settlers in that area BEFORE it became Irael. The whole reason there were “Palestinian Jews” is because there were many independant groups in Palestine (some being Jews). These groups didn’t extend much beyond the borders of their villages. That sounds a lot like pre-US America to me.
Do I really need to point out the flaws in that apparently very stupid argument? Even if the situations were exactly parallel, “The decendants won’t suffer” isn’t an argument at all, that is – at some point in the future – accepting the past, and finding a good compromise thereafter. Consider an extreme example. China nuked the US into the bedrock. There were a few survivors. Eventually it became uneconomical for China to maintain a colony, re-freed the territory, and US was rebuilt. Everyone’s ok then, does that mean China nuking the US now is a good thing?
I really couldn’t blame them, but I don’t think that the animosity, desperation, pride, cooridnation, or numbers is their. Now if Canada and Mexico were plumb full of other Indians willing to give political, financial, training, and arms supply, and the population wasn’t geographically and ethnically diverse, then it would probably be a different story.
But if you can think of some other current event that better relates to what was done in this country to American Indians, then by all means present it. Israel/Palestine is a perfect example if viewed through the eyes of the PLO. Their land is being taken from them, and they are resisting.
The American Indians DID have their lands taken from them. Yet, there are no huge uprisings, no discontent, no rallies, no bombings. It all seems to be ok. Why is it ok? Because it was so long ago? This was not supposed to be a debate about who has proper claim to Israeli land. It supposed to be, “Why are American Indians not as pissed off as Palestinians?” In their eyes, they both had their land taken from them.
Are the Palestinians just violent in nature, and just want a fight? Whereas the Indians were collectively a more peaceful people? How did the PLO develop this national collective identity and the Indians still haven’t to this day. I have never heard of a single Indian uprising. Not one extremist group demanding their country back. Why is that?
That theory has been revealed as a myth. Once again, you’re crapping on about Middle Eastern history without doing the most basic research.
This isn’t quite correct. You’re right that the term “Palestinian” only really became popular in the twentieth century. Originally, it applied to everyone living in the territory of Palestine, regardless of ethnic / religious groups. So there were Palestinian Jews, Christians and Muslims. Basically, when Israel came into existence, most of the Jews were now called “Israelis”, and the term “Palestinian” was left to the Arab Muslims and Christians. But “Palestinian” never meant the same as “Israeli”
Not true. There were some inklings of Palestinian Arab nationalism in the early 1920s, and there was certainly a national Palestinian identity after the 1948 war. Note that the idea of Palestinians as “Southern Syrians” hasn’t been around in the 20s and 30s, and even then was more of a conception of the intellectuals than one of the populace.
As for the idea of Palestinians in Jordan thinking of themselves as Jordanians, here’s two words for you: Black September. The Palestinian nationalist groups did not invent Palestinian nationalism, they were a manifestation of it, and gained their popularity becuase the ideas they espoused were popular, not the other way around.
Ummm no. The apparantly very stupid argument is purposely flawed. That was my point!
If China nuked the US, then I have to believe that whatever survivors made it out alive, would one day come together and start a rebellion. Start bombing and harrassing the new Chinese government in North America. They would take back their land! As they should!
Now this is what I’m trying to get to. I had considered the lack of desperation and pride as key issues.
But I hadn’t considered the current ethnical diversity as an issue. Don’t you think that the Indian “uprising” would just consider ‘everyone else’ as their oppressors? Everyone not Indian as defined by whatever current federal regulation classifies an American Indian for tax purposes would be the enemy.
The financial issue I think is not a problem. Indians, at least the Seminoles in Florida, are making a killing since Chief Billy convinced the state he was legally allowed to open casinos. They could get the funding easily.
Arms Supply. Again, this is not an issue. All sorts of weapons and explosives are easily obtained. Look at Koresh. This is America after all. My 5 year old nephew could but a gun.
Political support. They dont have it now, but wouldn’t that change after you blow up a couple dozen cars?
Is it strictly the lack of a “national identity”, an extreme pride and most of all a desperation that is keeping the current situation stable? I guess there is just no point in it to them.
But as was mentioned earlier, I have to believe no matter what that new Chinese Government offered the surviving Americans, we would start a rebellion.
For the rest of you who are missing the point (which is my fault Im sure):
If small groups of Native Americans started a violent PLO style resistance demanding their country back, would you believe they had a point? Would they have a right?
What if they did it peacefully? What would your thoughts be about giving up a great chunk of this country to the American Indians. I’m talking much greater than the reservations which still have to follow federal and state laws. I’m talking about giving up a state. Would you be against it? Would they be right in requesting it?
If you said NO. Subsitute “American” for “Idians” and “Post Apocalyptic North American Chinese Government” for “United States”. Now how do you feel?
My problem is that I don’t believe the Indians should get anything. I wouldn’t want to give them a whole state to create their own country. Whether they deserve it or not. And if they started being little terrorists, I would fight their resistance.
Yet, if the roles were reversed and I was a surviving member of the US living peacefully with my Casinos and Bingo, but under a Chinese ruler, Id right. I would do everything I could to get “my country” back. And I think I would be right about doing it.
These two ideas are conflicting. Does the fact that Natives did not have a national identity, just floating tribes, make it right to take their land? Or at least, less wrong?
OK, in case my analogy wasn’t clear enough I think it’s that after enough time you have to accept something… it’s not happy, but I think everyone can agree it’s necessary.
American living immediately post-apocalype: resistance justified by any means necessary to take their country back.
“Native American” several generations removed post-apocalypse: desire for revenge perhaps understandable, but it’s not the fault of the millions of innocent Chinese living their then, and what would they do with the whole country anyway?
OK, I’m sorry, this analogy probably doesn’t help. The point is that there’s so many million people in America, some of whom are Native Americans, and despite tragic history, no-one alive now is really responsible for any of it, so there’s little to do but grant everyone equal rights, and hope they can find their home somewhere. The Israel/Palestine confict is current: Israel was created 50 years ago, and violence is going on now, and needs a solution of some sort.
[QUOTE=Eve]
Because the situation with the Israelis the Palestinians have absolutely nothing in common with the situation between EWuropean settlers and American Indians. QUOTE]
Indians: Individual and unique tribes (Seminole, Apache etc) spread across a vast land.
Palestinians: Individual and unique tribes (Yemminites, Kessites etc) spread across a vast land.
Indians: Inhabited a land, but had no national identity. Each group was seperate and not part of any nation.
Palestinians: Inhabited a land, but had no national identity. Each group was seperate and not part of any nation.
Indians: Land was claimed as the property of new settlers. Claim was reinforced with violent action.
Palestinians: Land was claimed as the property of new settlers. Claim was reinforced with violent action. (Sure many or most people came after it became Israel, but there were settlers before. The land was not totally barren)
Indians: Had their land taken from them.
Palestinians: Think they had their land taken from them.
Eve, the two groups have pleanty in common. But that’s really not the point. My last sentence " Either that, or Native Americans should start car bombing the United States." was supposed to make you think “Oh, I see, he’s not really talking about Palestinians at all. This is about the situation with Native Americans”
The PLO/Israeli situation is the best I could compare it to. Maybe I should have just made up my own “China Nuked America” story instead. But your reply is total crap. And I say that as gentlemanly as possible.
Since you have all the education that I’m lacking, why don’t you explain the fact that there have been no modern violent uprisings from Native Americans. In a time when everyone seems to be pissed off about something, they seem collectively content with the situation.
Were the actions of the past a necessary atrocity to get where we are today? Does that make it ok?
Just about every race has had some kind of huge protest or violent out cry in this country. But those who probably have the most reason to, have no desire to. What can the rest of the world learn from this? What makes the Indian culture so peaceful in general?
But this is skirting the issue. You are saying that it will be ok as long as things are ok many years from now and the change ends up for the better. Imagine how citizens of Iraq will view their democratic country 100 years from now. (provided it turns out as planned. this is not up for debate.) They will think that no matter how bad things were at the time, the change was for the better and everything is good now.
If you were alive a couple hundred years ago, and you KNEW what the future had in store for America. Would you stand aside and allow the slaughtering of Indians and the theft of their land? Or would you prevent it because it’s “wrong right now”. Even if it will have such positive results?
If the PLO was defeated with excessive force and peace through extreme violence was obtained, then 100 years from now everyone would be content with it? Even surviving PLO ancestors? Should they be at that point?
Umm, there have. Were you alive in the 1960s or '70s? If not, do some research or Googling.
And I still say your comparison of American Indians with Palestinians is not only completely off-base, but reflects an anti-Israeli, pro-Palestinian bias that makes you blind to facts or reason.
There have been many, many threads on the Mideast situation, and there are more expert people than I here. But just to name two, off the top of my head:
• The American Indians signed treaties which were broken by the U.S. The Palestinians have refused treaty after treaty, and have endlessly broken “ceasefires.”
• Israel is surrounded by huge countries which might have offered the Palestinians a safe, comfortable homeland: Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Lebanon. But it’s in their interest to keep the Palestinians mad, poor and killing Jews. It’s not like the American Indians could have easily resettled in Mexico or Canada (though, indeed, some did just that).