When will you Jews condemn this incident in West Bank?

Post Reply New Topic

Hmm a modicum of truth but not really true. The situation was more mixed than you present, especially if you are talking centuries. The "peaceful" times were almost aways under some strict administration of one culture or another, there was tribal rivalries, but yes much of the Levant was sparsely inhabited anyway, with trade routes passing through between hubs. Perhaps the Ottomans were better administrators, but they also built up a lot of resentment in the end. There are always winners and loosers in these situations, and there was plotting going on and actual rebellions. Sectarianism was alive and well then as it is now.

The only difference is 20th century influence of allied an axis forces on the conspiracy theories on the general paranoia.

There were Jews living in the area yeas as well as other people in an are which was trans-Jordan. There are also Bedouin who don't identify as Palestinian, also Druze and so forth.

The concept of Palestine is British, there never was such a country or people. The Romans had a colony called Syria Palaestina, but this is was just in many incarnations of various territories in the broader Levant and has little to do with this incarnation.

Having said that, this is pretty irrelevant now, as I don't believe in the divine right, nor do I care about connections to past historical civilizations. These aren't a basis for modern recognition of a state. Israel is a state and Palestine should be one.

Yes the foundation of Israel may have been a mistake at the time, but if anyone thinks there is much to be gained by reversing history then they are in cloud cuckoo land. By any modern definition Israel is an established nation. The question is how to get a viable Palestinian state.

The problem is Gaza is no East Pakistan/Bangladesh. It lacks the ingredients to be a state, even in a stable situation. It is too dependent on the surrounding areas purely one a geographic basis. Even the opportunity to have more land in the Sianai has been rejected by Hamas.

Go back to before the Arab/Israeli war look at the situation. Look at the map in 1946. The Palestinians would love to have even half of what was on the table then, and yet it was rejected then. This is when Palistinians were free to live in both Palestinian territory and Israel. Yes some were expelled after the Arab states attacked, but that was pretty normal action in those days.

I point out that Lebanon had a larger population in 1946, with more diversity in a smaller land mass than the Palestinian area (excluding Israel). It wasn't a Humanitarian crisis for those people then.

Anyone who reduces this conflict purely down to land or population, should look at the demographic and land on offer in 1946 and now. This is a superiority contest pure and simple, and people are suffering becuase of that. They could choose peace if they wanted.

Now look at all the other problems in the middle east going back centuries and continuing to this day, now tell me this deserves more attention given it is actually relatively small in numbers on both sides in comparison. I don't wish to diminish it entirely, I'm just saying there is a lack of real perspective or proportionality, which is hypocritical IMO. The stoking of the situation, plays into a destructive identity politics, which is one of mutual paranoia not limited to Arab/Jewish relations, but actually stems from and an extension of tensions between different cultures and tribes. A neurosis that is quite evident throughout the Middle East and the diaspora, except for a some of middle class cosmopolitan people.

Proving a point about "fairness" by demoting or punishing a state, could actually put progress back. What is needed is a practical solution, and maybe eventually we should educate people why blind nationalism isn't always all it is cracked up to be.

I like to consider the hypothetical example: If the next generation somehow grew up totally isolated from the parents or without knowledge of their parents ideology and hangups, would they through their own fruition be getting involved in such BS conflicts? Would they be getting on with their lives or would they be living in misery and suffering?

The self-perpetuating aspect of it is very controversial I understand but, it is also an unconformable truth. Neurosis on an individual level can also happen en masse and be passed through the generations. I find it hard to blame all people for it especially if this is often all they have grown up with. I can have compassion for them, but I know from neurotic conditions I have experienced be it anxiety or many of the common afflictions, that you can't treat them by pandering to the destructive behaviour even in sympathy. If you encourage this identity, you encourage the suffering, which is not the compassionate thing to do.

Last edited by 0_equals_true on 02 Sep 2015, 6:26 pm, edited 4 times in total.

Btw I used to share many of the views presented in the thread (other than the "hate" of whole groups), however something within me really dislikes simplistic arguments. It doesn't suit my anylical nature, and I don't think such a attitude has done much to abate this conflict.