The First Terrorists in Palestine: A Timeline

Great Debates
61

But sure, if you want examples of historical terrorism you can go back to Biblical times! Tamerlane’s clear implication is [Ray Bradbury’s “Martian Chronicles”]“WE ARE THE MARTIANS!”[/RB’s"MC"] - the Canaanites never went away, they became the Jews.

And edwino is of course correct. Each side can play the game of whose historical claim trumps whose, and all that decides who wins is when you decide to start the clock. (“Jewish claims on Israel were ancient but never abandoned, a constant presence throughout” vs. “this was Arab land in all of Modern times until the early part of the 20th century when Jews moved in in larger numbers.” and so on) but it is moot. There is a situation on the ground now. Living in the past, killing and being killed over these kinds of historical claims, is asinine, when both sides would be better served by analysing what better creates their futures.

62

Well. I thought I was making this point when I showed how I can “turn the tables” on any historical argument so that it comes out in our favor, so to speak…

Guess I should have reminded all and sundry to turn their sarcasm detectors on :frowning:

Yes, my point is exactly that it doesn’t matter to either side why the other side is there. We are here. They are here. Somethings gotta give, and as much as I don’t like the concept, we’re going to have to give something. We also need to see a real quid pro quo from the Palestinian side.
History lessons are great for explaining to ourselves what we are doing in this og-forsaken hell-hole. They have exactly zero bearing on our dealings with the other side. And vice versa.

Dani

63

adaher - Okay, let me approach this in a slightly less confrontational way.

My understanding of your post is that you were implying the original Islamic conquests involved widespread slaughter, to the point of actually causing whole populations to go substantially extinct.

My reply to that particular point would be is that while that is a common misconception. The Islamic conquests actually didn’t disturb the bulk of the populace much at all, in terms of actual bloodshed. Indeed for the first couple of generations, the Arab conquerers ( who weren’t exceptionally numerous ) were largely parasitic on existing Persian and Byzantine administrative systems and administrators. The local populace sometimes fared worse, sometimes better under Arab rule, depending on the locale. But they were a valuable tax base ( in the beginning, the only substantial tax base, as early Muslims were exempt all but a simple alms-tax ) of an ethnic religion that didn’t really seek non-Arab converts and even actively discouraged it in some cases. Most of the lands under Caliphal rule remained substantially non-Muslim well into the tenth century. It is only then, with increasing repression and other endogenous factors, that we start to see large-scale conversion in places like Egypt.

This does not mean that the Arabs were saints or indeed, did not indulge in the occasional massacre of perceived rebels or enemies. But it does mean that the common conception of early Islam as offering death the sword or conversion is pretty exaggerated. In fact the standard default was a third alternative - poll taxes. Nor does it mean that the spread of Arabic was the same as the spread of ethnic Arabs or even Islam - Arabic spread as a language of learning, commerce, religion and in some areas, governance.

  • Tamerlane
64

…for BBF defining the claim for land as BS.

The very big and important difference in the Jewish claim for this forsaken, stinky, tiny, piece of land, as I presented it here firstly, and in another post, i.e., “When the best of the best…”, due modesty, is that the Jews, sad to say it, were, and still are, never really and fully accepted in the places where they live. This is a fact, which I, as a Jew, felt myself, and I do not wish anyone to feel it and to experience it.
So, here we are, in Israel, saying that, since this was my ancestral home, I claim my ancestral right for it, just to provide a safe and secure home for my chased people. And are we chased!.. Like animals. Antisemitism is on the rise in Europe and here, too, I dare say.
This is the pt which should be taken into consideration, IMHO.

True, it causes pain, but not an irrepairable one for the Palestinians. They have 21 other Arab countries and many other additional Muslim ones.

This, if the world will be willing, can be an excellent solution, a very palpable one to all involved. It does not incur killing, only temporary discomfort, and I don’t say it lightly. I know it’s people involved, men, women and children, and I hurt it, pls, believe me, but it’s viable, doable. Consider it.

65

Wake up to what?

I would appreciate if you were less presumptuous as to what I do or do not know. Ok, so you don’t think the world should be defined by “right” actions. What should it be defined by? I propose a democratic system of government.

Yes, the Jews may be the most discriminated against group in history, but maybe theres a good reason for it, but thats an entirely different thread. Why should the Palestinians have to suffer when the majority of historical Jewish screwing has been done by Europeans? Maybe the Jews should be given large portions of France, or Germany, or Poland, or Russia, or Egypt, or Canada, or the U.S., or god knows how many other countries they’ve had beef with in the past. Why do they so badly want Palestine? Because God promised it to them? Who is this God person anyway? I understand that they got shafted far too many times, but how is that a good reason to do the same to the Palestinians?

As for the argument that a Native American resurgence in the U.S. would be legitamate, lets take a look at some numbers. Whats the total population of the U.S? According to the Census Bureau, its projected to be 290 million+. What percent of those are Native Americans?
Maybe 3%. So what would the effect be when 3% if the population takes over a nation? Where would the remaining 97% go? Having the Native Americans take back the U.S. (and the entire Americas) would be highly undemocratic and unfeasible to maintain. In Israel, the numbers are in the favor of the Jews, but not by much.

Do you have a cite? If we assume these numbers, nearly half of the population of the region is in an oppresive state. While its nothing like the 97% that would happen in the U.S. its hardly a figure we can ignore.

As I’ve outlined above, it would not be democratic for such an event to occur, but if it did happen, the effect on me would not be as drastic as it is on the Palestinians. I’m an immigrant to the U.S. and don’t hold any particularly strong ties to the land. I would imagine it would be different for someone who was born and raised here and whose family goes back a few generations. I’ll try to answer your points as best as I can but I am unclear about the latter two.

a) Since I’m not emotionally attached to the land, receiving reparations and being allowed to continue my education, work, life, etc elsewhere would be an entirely acceptable solution. For someone who was emotionally attached to the land or had nowhere else to turn such as the Palestinians, this would not be the ideal solution. It would be alright if some land was left alone for the Palestinians to live on, and reparations made so that they would not continue in their abysmal living conditions and would have something to help them set up, etc.

b) In the case of the Native Americans, reparations are being made by society and the government. They have considerable autonomy withing reservations and their youth are able to attend nearly any college for the simple fact that they are Native Americans. In the case of the Palestinians, why should they, who have been living there for centuries, have to suddenly pay to continue doing so? The analogy between the Native Americans/U.S. and Palestine/Israel isn’t perfect because it wasn’t the Palestinians who drove the Israelites out.

c) I don’t understand your point.

66

OK, I’m not 1stChristian, but I’ll try to answer your points:

I’ll avoid this one, as I was not the one making the presumptions :slight_smile:

Care to elaborate - just a little - here?

I think it has been determined that history is pretty much irrelevant. there are two groups of people fighting for the same sand dune. I ain’t going nowhere, this is my HOME, OK? And yes, I realize my hypothetical Palestinian counterpart would say the same. Hence a compromise must be reached.

So the fact that the Americans did a better job at genocide somehow grants them extra points? I thought you were the one here claiming that history makes a difference…

Well, I do. And it’s my land you’re trying to say I have no right to stay on

See above. Acceptable to you, not acceptable to me.

Color me officially confused. You’re saying the analogy breaks down because it wasn’t the Palestinians who drove the Jews out. Are you imlpying that the Native Americans did drive the Modern Americans out of North america?No, somehow I didn’t think so…
If anything, the situation in the US is more, not less unfair - no Modern American claims his forebears ever inhabited the land. None contradicts the claim that Native Americans did. It’s just a case of Might (and time) makes Right. OK - give us another 200 years without too much scrutiny into our treatment of our “natives”…

'S’OK - neither did I :confused:

On preview, maybe some of my quips sound a bit snarky. Not intended that way, but it’s late here and I just don’t have the energy to go over the whole thing again. Just assume if something can be interperted as either disparaging, cynical or just emotional, I did not intend the first. Appologies in advance :frowning:

Dani

67

From a sociological perspective, why would anyone discriminate against others? Because the others are vastly different in customs and practices. There have been cases of tolerance (i.e. the Ottoman empire) but few and far between. The Jews’ notion of them being the Chosen People makes them seem particularly aloof. Its as if they are better than everyone else and have the full support of God behind them. Not exactly the way to make friends by saying you’re better than your neighbors. And the Jews aren’t particularly preachy or in the habit of actively recruiting. While this may seem like a good thing, at some level, people will find this to be once again to be an arrogant characteristic. “Oh I’m not good enough to be Chosen?”

Won’t find an argument from me. :slight_smile:

Unfortunately, yes. The fact that the Native American population has been so efficiently demolished means they can never justifiably regain their land. Why should 3% of a population take all the land? I am claiming that history only makes a difference if what can be done today can in fact be done.

Then shouldn’t you sympathize with the Palestinians more? As you said it is your land, just as it had been the Palestinian’s land. The Native American’s haven’t actively been connected to the land as they were before the 1500s for quite some time. The same can be said of the Israelites before mass immigration started a mere few decades ago. Ok, so the Israelites may have grown attached to the land, and its now their home, and as I said, history should only matter if its feasible. Thus, Palestinians shouldn’t suddenly rush back into the whole of Israel and take back every single settlement since Israel’s founding. The compromise would be that the newer settlements, which encroach on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, should be destroyed and the boundaries of Israel and Palestine solidified. And this has started to happen.

What I meant was the Palestinians didn’t drive the Jews out but the U.S. did drive the Native Americans out. Thus, it would make moral or historical sense for the Native Americans to come and drive the U.S. out but not for the Jews to come and drive the Palestinians out. Regardless of who did the original driving out, the analogy of historical claim and the repercussions of its fulfillment remain.

You’re right. Might did make Right, but has society changed that this is no longer the case? I would like to think so, but maybe I’m just being naïve.

68

No One Special? - fear not. To this particular Doper, you’re not coming across as being “snarky” in the least. Indeed, as I mentioned earlier, I’m totally impressed with your magnanimity and common-sense approach to the issues at hand. I honestly believe that if people like yourselves were in positions of power at the negotiaiting table ON BOTH SIDES, then things would be a lot better all round I suspect - so keep those great posts coming, OK?

Now, 1stChristian? First thing first… please don’t include ME in your assumption that the “world is against the Jews”. My neighbour downstairs is Jewish, as are his descendants and they’re welcome in my home any old time they want. And so long as you’re a good, responsible citizen who is prepared to swear allegiance to Australia above all else, then you’re welcome to be my neighbour too. I don’t give a crap about your religious beliefs, nor anyone elses - except when they start to impact upon my lifestyle in some capacity.

Secondly… my post earlier where I noted that anyone (and everyone) who is trying to use the “we were here first ergo we have a more righteous position” at the negotiating table? Well, I have to say that such a tactic flies in the face of common sense in my opinion. Hence, my comment that such positions are effectively self-serving bullshit - because all they manage to achieve are intractable, irreconcilable positions of obtuseness. I make that comment in the firm belief that I’m a reasonable man, and a fair man too. But I also have to say this too… it matters not whether Israel is entitled by history, or the might of arms, or the right of UN resolutions to be in the position she is - all of that is superceded by the fact that just 100 kilometers away are millions of people whose average GDP per capita per annum is heart-breakingly small compared to that of the average Israeli citizen - and THAT is the problem it seems to me.

I’m not in the same league as guys like Tamerlane when it comes to historical knowledge, but I feel totally safe in saying this… when one country is living in relative wealth right next door to another country who is both pissed off with the first country and secondly, is also living in near destitute conditions of institutionalised poverty and they blame the first country for their conditions, well… you don’t have to be a rocket scientist to predict how that second country is gonna constantly attack the first country to “get even” in some way…

Hence, as No One Special observed - not only is it the right thing to do to actually make the lives and general wealth of Palestinians better, but ALSO, from a peace and security point of view, it’s in Israel’s interests to do what ever it can to make the lives of Palestinians better. It will reduce the resentment, and it will remove the fertile soil for extremism.

Most importantly, the logic and premises which existed in 1967 to annexe the West Bank like Hitler did to Austria in 1938? The world has changed 1stChristian - the world has changed. It’s time to give it back - all of it - including the settlements.

You’ve got two choices - you can keep the West Bank and all the settlements and in doing so, you can keep the suicide bombers. Or you can give the West Bank back, name it Palestine and let the settlers choose where they’d like to live, or let 'em become Palestinians - but you can’t have your cake and eat it too.

That’s how it seems to me, and I dare say, that’s how it seems to most of the world these days.

69

so, Stoneburg: You still wanna kiss ** Gairloch?**

70

Cite for population numbers for pothead:
MidEastWeb shows Israel’s population (citizens) as 6.4 million. The CIA factbook lists this as 80% Jewish and 15% Muslim, with 2% Christian and 3% other. MidEastWeb lists Palestine’s population at 3.3 million. This apparently doesn’t include refugees in Jordan and Lebanon, so this may be a little low. You may, if you feel inclined, add non-national worker numbers to this: I believe there are significant number of Palestinians composing the non-voting populace of places like Kuwait. I was a little off but not much.

Uh, no. Austria hadn’t attacked Germany before. Austria hadn’t mobilized an army and conducted military exercises on its border, while expelling a UN monitoring force, shelling German cities, and continually threatened to invade and push the Germans into the sea. Austria hadn’t closed Germany’s sea lanes.

Egypt, Syria, and Jordan did this in 1967. Egypt under Nasser mobilized their army in the Sinai, expelled a UN monitoring force, closed the Straits of Tiran, and threatened to push the Jews into the sea. Jordan and Syria had shelled Israeli cities. There was no Palestinian state – Jordan occupied the West Bank and Egypt occupied Gaza. Israel acted in self-defense by any fair view and attacked preemptively, with the casus belli being the closure of the Straits of Tiran. There was no predominant expansionist goals or manifest destiny in Israeli politics in 1967. The main reason that they occupied the Sinai, the Golan, Gaza, and the West Bank was Israel establishing a defensible border. In fact, after the 1967 cease fire, they tried to give the land back, but no peace treaty was ever signed (IIRC).

In 1973 it happened again, and without those pieces of land, there is a reasonable chance that Israel could have been overrun. Whatever you say about the occupation, Israeli reluctance to give away lands without comprehensive peace treaties backed up by international supprt and defense agreements is understandable from a strictly military viewpoint.

71

Yes, edwino - you make a very valid point there. Historically, Israel can indeed justify her actions in 1967 with far greater validity than Nazi Germany could regarding Austria in 1938. With hindsight, I’m quite happy to concede that it was a poor analogy.

I would contend that nonetheless, the nature of the state of play in 2003 has changed however. Insofar as I don’t think Israel could make the same claims regarding the threats posed by Jordan and Egpyt at today’s date - which is what I was referring to when I said the world had changed.

Thank you for the polite correction.

72

My remark about the Native American claim for land, was made as a counterpoint to “pothead” comparison of the Jewish claim to an hypothetic one by the Native Americans.
I have a problem of my own, the Is-Pal conflict and this is what concerns me now.

73

Cynic, shame on you, shame! You had done a most rude thing and you owe me an apology, I believe. What you did, is very disturbing and stinks.
We may think differently, but what you did is not done.

74

BBF, you may rest assures that I do not include you in such a statement, as “The world is against the Jews”. Actually I don’t think so, but I do think that antisemitism is rampant, still.

75

1stChristian? I’ve said it lots of times here previously, as have many, many other Dopers too… after the horrid atrocities against Jewish people in the Holocasut, and the forced detentions and blatant ethnic cleansing throughout Europe in the buildup to WW2, only the most cold-hearted ogre would not concede that the Jewish people were fully justified in wanting to create a spiritual homeland where they could (hopefully) live in peace. Moreover, only a the most mean-spirited person would not agree that you could hardly blame Jewish people for NOT wanting to remain in Europe after WW2 - considering everything that happened.

Nonetheless, I’ve read a number of things you’ve had to say about your feelings towards Palestinians, and quite frankly - I’m hearing the same sort “broad brushstroke” prejudices that I’ve often heard said about Jewish people in Europe prior to WW2. And I suspect that such comments make a few of us feel rather uneasy, you know?

Look, I recognise you’ve been in all those wars. I recognise you’ve seen more atrocities than you’d care to remember, and that your people were persecuted for decades prior to that back in Europe. But shit man? Where does it end? Is it any less noble to treat the lives and aspirations of Palestinians the way Jewish people were treated in Europe in the 1930’s? Can you see what I’m getting at here?

My point here is that we’re all humans first, and then members of a tribe second. The problems we’re facing these days is that tribalism is being placed first and foremost at the expense of everything else - and that includes the assumption that Israel is allowed to exist at any expense whatsoever of the Palestinian people.

However, you’ve suggested that the Palestinians should migrate to any of the 21 countries you’ve noted because they’d at least be welcome there. Well, can you not see how inherently arrogant such a suggestion is - from the Palestinian’s point of view? If not all of the Arabian neighbours point of view? It simply smacks of forced expulsions, and last time I checked, NATO got into quite a shitfight in Kosovo in 1999 to explicitly prevent such a thing from happening.

Sorry, 1stChristian, your suggestion that the Palestinians should all be absorbed into the surrounding neighbouring countries is just plain wrong. They would be treated just as badly in their new homes as they are now. They’d be unwelcome and looked upon as “leeches on the system” I predict. Also, it’s a suggestion which, sadly, thoroughly mirrors the same suggestions which were made about exporting Jews from Europe in the 1930’s it seems to me. There is something inherently inhumane about it, and considering the awful atrocities committed against the Jewish people in WW2, I’m really surprised I’m not hearing more compassion by yourself to be honest.

76

BBF, thank you for the cold-headed and polite re to my assertions.

I want to make it clear, here and for all, that I do not intend in the least to harm one Palestinian. I wish to god we could live in peace, b/c I know it’s possible. What I said about them is merely a reminder of things they did and everyone knows it. I didn’t invemt anything and didn’t said the things in a vindictive way, just to make a pt.

Yes, this solution I propose together w many others living in this hell, there, is the most viable, beside the dividing of the tiny piece of land in two.

Suppose we divide it in two lands for two peoples, as some propose. How will the Palestinians be able to make a viable and prospering state in a small canton or cantons? How? Beside the scarry possibility of having an army down my throat, there, armed heavily, and this is what they’ll do for sure, they’ll invade the other tiny state, Israel, w working people, as they do, partially, now.

I still think that, in spite of the problems which you so intelligently raise, this is the best solution for everyone involved.

77

Not necessarily so 1stChristian. Suppose, just for the sake of hypotheticals, that Israel was partitioned into 2 separate nation-states (excluding the Golan Heights because I recognise that Syria has yet to demonstrate good faith on this matter) and that those 2 nation states followed the borders of pre 1967 war?

OK, OK, it’s just a suggestion… but my point here is this… nobody in the the world is arguing that Israel does NOT have the right to defend herself.

I’d be quite happy to let israel build a bloody no-mans zone which followed the pre 1967 borders which included every bit of technology ever invented - including both the Berlin Wall AND the no-mans land in the Korean peninsula. Hell, if it allowed Israel’s security, fine, build a bloody wall half a mile high I say. Nobody is going to object.

Then it’s a question of what the world can do to build the new “Palestine” (aka the West Bank and Gaza) into a propserous modern industrialised Western country. Yes, I concede that there are logistical issues as to how the Gaza Strip could be attached to the West Bank, and I suspect a neutral series of transport conduits similar to West Germany thru East Germany to West Berlin could be the asnwer. If necessary, build huge friggin walls around them, too!

What I’m getting at is this - the settlements in the West Bank are generally looked upon as being “land grabs by stealth” by most neutral observers in the Western World. I truly believe that all of those settlements would have to be conceded to the new Palestinian nation for the proposal to work. Then, Israel would be entitled to protect her 1967 borders with all of the blasted military might that the world has to offer, and I honestly believe that no one would deny Israel this right. If she chose, she would also be entitled to permanently seal those borders too - even from the Israeli settlers who are there in the West Bank right now too. Now that last point is a real stickler, but from a security point of view it seems to me to be the major issue here…

Namely… the Palestinians have proven they can’t be trusted regarding terrorism. Israel is perfectly entitled to adopt such a position. I’m suggesting that Israel’s borders should be sealed from the Sinai, all the way up the 1967 West Bank borders up to the Lebanon borders - and NO ONE should be able to pass - at least for say, 5 years. During that 5 year period, the whole world should do what it can to turn Palestine into a prosperous nation by investing in industry and civil institutions etc etc etc.

Where there’s a will, there’s a way. But one thing’s for sure… expelling EVERY Palestinian from the West Bank and Gaza is simply ethnic cleansing my friend, and it can’t be allowed. In the name of humanity, that can’t be allowed.

Hence, the Palestinian people should be given the opportunity to live peacefully without occupation by the Israeli Army in their pre 1967 homelands as an option. If it transpires that the settlers who live in the West Bank have to emigrate back into the new Israel, then that’s just the way it has to be - and then seal the borders after that.

Look, it’s only a suggestion and I’m sure there’s a million holes in my logic, but I’m even MORE SURE that the ethnic cleansing option of exporting the Palestinians from Gaza and the West Bank would bury Israel forever - in terms of global good will.

And Jerusalem? Ahhh… Jerusalem? The only option there is to also turn it into a tiny international city - al la the Vatican. Everybody thinks they own it and no one owns it at all in reality. It has to become the Vatican of the Middle East. Everybody wins that way.

78

…let me think about it… :wink:
Inhuman scares me, believe me and I mean it. This is a serious flaw, indeed, in the “Pal to their bros home” suggestion.
I understand that there should be a compromise.
Saying this, I add now a new pt to the conversation, namely, I, among many Isr’s, believe they really mean to throw us into the sea. I know it sounds paranoidic, but they just don’t accept us there and this is the final curtain on the Jewish tragedy, to my mind. I just don’t believe they’ll let us live in peace. Sorry for the skepticism.

79

Well, this is why I suggested that the 1967 borders should be a bloody half mile wide “no mans zone” armed to the teeth. And that includes any “conduit transport routes” between Gaza and the West Bank, or for that matter, Israel and the Jerusalem Jewish quarter. It’s a sad thing to have to consider building a series of interconnected transport conduits which are armed to the teeth, but it’s a valid point you make. Those “destruction of Israel” statements are, in themselves, a form of terror which, in reality, can only be countered with the threat of terrifying military might on the part of Israel where the potential new borders meet.

With hindsight, I suppose that Jerusalem itself would have to have a no-mans land built around it, too - also with sealed borders in some parts. It’s a dreadful shame, but I don’t think I’m taking sides when I suggest that the extremists on the Palestinian side have brought such a scenario upon themselves.

Just something to consider however. The 1948 war, and the 1967 and 1973 wars were dreadful events - but I’m firmly convinced that such events wouldn’t be able to get off the ground nowadays. There’s simply too much satellite technology to allow the sorts of massive military build up required to achieve such a thing. From a military angle, I truly believe that the claims by extremists of “death to Isreal” are more designed to terrify the average Isreali that they are realistic. One thing’s for sure… even the slightest bit of military build up on any of Israel’s borders would be met with terrifying Israeli military might, and no one in the Western World (assuming all of my hypothetical suggestions were implemented) would object to Israel pre-emptively defending herself with military operations.

It’s the present occupation of the West Bank and Gaza which is “pouring so much fuel on the fire” it seems to me. Seal them off I say, and make them a prosperous autonomous nation state in their own right. And then point shit loads of tanks and missiles at them if need be. Anyone who enters the no man’s zones? Instant detention - at the very least.

80

“One thing’s for sure… even the slightest bit of military build up on any of Israel’s borders would be met with terrifying Israeli military might, and no one in the Western World (assuming all of my hypothetical suggestions were implemented) would object to Israel pre-emptively defending herself with military operations.”

Don’t be so sure about it. The goodwill will be there, but not the cojones to implement it, I mean a Western/Worldwide approval of military action on the part of Israel in self-defense. This is evident from the reactions of the UN forces on our borders there, in Sinai (less) and in Lebanon (countless ex’s, like seeing Israeli soldiers kidnapped and doing nothing and unwilling to give the video tapes to Israel) and in Bosnia (re the Holland soldiers passive attitude on the Srebrenica massacre).
Since this is the main pt in your argumentation, it’s sad that the situation is such, right?
No agreemenst will override the 21 cent humanism, no matter how inhumane the actions (of the Pals) will be. Re the world reaction to the 1st Isr incursions after horrific atrocities done on us by them, like killing in cold blood a young woman and her baby in her house, or a direct shoot and kill an 8 mths babygirl in her cart.