Palestinians in Jordanian refugee camps?

[Dinosaur]

A friend recently told me that there are Palestinians who have been living in Jordanian refugee camps for 30-40 or more years. He seemed to believe that there were about a million in these camps, perhaps more.

Is this true?

[S.A.M.]

Yup.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vZkPd5vGzBk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WVCY-CKTW50

[quadraphonics]

There are large numbers of Palestinians residing in all of the Arab states in the region, although most have seen significant repatriations into the Occupied Territories over the years (many were forced out of Lebanon in the Civil War, and there were mass expulsions from many states, particularly the Gulf States, over the PLO's support of Saddam back in the early 1990's.) Jordan is something of an exception in this regard, and has granted citizenship to many (most?) of the Palestinians there (unlike other Arab states). Although Jordan did also wage a merciless, bloody campaign against said Palestinians back in 1970 (it's known as "Black September.") The majority of the Jordanian population is of Palestinian origin, but the monarchy is not, so this can be a touchy issue there.

Also, "refugee camp" can be a misleading term in this context. It generally brings to mind rows of tents and open-ditch latrines, but this is not the case with the camps the Palestinians inhabit which, over the decades, have been built into urban ghettos that are not distinguishable from their surroundings. Likewise, the designation of descendents of actual refugees as refugees themselves is unique to the Palestinians (likewise, Palestinian refugee issues are handled by the UNRWA instead of the UNHCR, which handles all other refugee issues). The point is that the application of the term "refugee" here has long been highly politicized, and so should not be read as a simple descriptor.

[S.A.M.]

The UN created these refugees. They had no jurisdiction to donate their land to Jews.

[spidergoat]

Actually, as a british territory, they did.

[S.A.M.]

Nope. The UN, until today, has no jurisdiction to give away territory to immigrants or religious or ethnic groups. The British did not either. Every single partition they created was only after the people living there agreed to it. For whatever reason. The Palestinians were cheated.

[spidergoat]

They surely did as one of the major allied powers. They could divide up Germany, redraw national borders, occupy nations and disband their armies. It was a desperate time that called for such bold measures. The Palestinians aren't divorced from history.

[outlandish]

Actually, as a british territory, they did.
goaty, if the levant was in lets say china (for arguments sake) you'd still concede that eastern european peoples had a valid claim to chinese land, and had more right to that land over the indiginious chinese.

[S.A.M.]

They surely did as one of the major allied powers. They could divide up Germany, redraw national borders, occupy nations and disband their armies. It was a desperate time that called for such bold measures. The Palestinians aren't divorced from history.

None of the above involved replacing indigenous peoples with foreigners and giving them a state that excluded the people who stayed there. Note that Germany participated in the division and is now reunited. That would not have happened if half of Germany was given to the Jews.

[spidergoat]

Jews were also natives. I suppose no Arabs that call themselves Palestinian ever came from anywhere else? Right.

[S.A.M.]

Sorry, you cannot be native to a place after 2000 years. Are Italians native to the Netherlands? They occupied them for several hundred years 2000 years ago.

[quadraphonics]

Sorry, you cannot be native to a place after 2000 years. Are Italians native to the Netherlands?

How long does nativity last? If Israel keeps the Palestinians out of Israel for another, say, 50 generations, will that make them legitimate?

[spidergoat]

Not every Jew in Israel was a refugee. Furthermore, the Zionist movement began in the late 1800's. The Jewish population was 30% even in the 1930's. That's not an insignificant number.

[S.A.M.]

I think we can safely assume that the 7% would have continued to live there if the Europeans hadn't come in. The Jewish population was not 30%

http://israelipalestinian.procon.org/files/ispal%20images/ispalpopchart3.gif

http://israelipalestinian.procon.org/viewresource.asp?resourceID=636#graph2

[outlandish]

Jews were also natives. I suppose no Arabs that call themselves Palestinian ever came from anywhere else? Right.

you have absolutely no grasp of the ideology of zionism, and it's implementation within a historical context do you?

the palestinian mizrahi didn't establish the state of israel.

[nirakar]

They surely did as one of the major allied powers. They could divide up Germany, redraw national borders, occupy nations and disband their armies. It was a desperate time that called for such bold measures. The Palestinians aren't divorced from history.

Do major allied powers still have this right? If the USA, Russia, Germany, France, The UK, India, Brazil and China agree to donate Ireland to the Tibetans and to move the people of Tibet to Ireland and the people of Ireland to Australia against the wishes of the Australians would the major powers have this right.

The major powers certainly have the have the power to do many things, but do they have the right? Does might make right?

Did anything change after Hitler? Before Hitler consensus opinion gave very little consideration to the rights of weaker peoples dominated by strong nations. After Hitler a consensus has developed that weaker peoples should have rights even if they are neither White nor Christian.

The UN and the major powers don't do much when China occupies Tibet or when Hutus kill Tutsis or when ethnic Burmese abuse the minorities in Myanmar or when the Turks try to force Kurds to speak Turkish and abandon their Kurdish identity. Almost nobody in the USA defends the strong abusing the weak in those situations. There has been some attempt at times to label the Kurds as terrorists in order to avoid criticizing US ally Turkey. When Guatemalan mestizos soldiers funded by the USA killed 50,000 indigenous Guatemalans (Mayans +...) in an (ethnic and to a lessor degree class) war sold to the USA as a war on communism the US media split with part of the media trying to pretend the abuse was justified or that the abuse did not exist while other parts of the media condemned the abuse and condemned Reagan's support for the abusers.

No foreign conflict story in which US troops were not involved approaches Israel/Palestine for level of media coverage in the USA during the last 30 years. Objectively it is clear that the Palestinians are the victims in this story.

All attempts to present the story in a different light are deceitful. Any person who believes otherwise despite knowing as much about this story as you Spidergoat does has deceived themselves. There is nothing strange about self-deception. We lie to ourselves in support of our greed, hope, and pride. We are emotional creatures governed more by emotions and traditions, than we are by logic. We are a pack animal. Loyalty triumphs over objectivity.

They surely did as one of the major allied powers. They could divide up Germany, redraw national borders, occupy nations and disband their armies. It was a desperate time that called for such bold measures. The Palestinians aren't divorced from history.

"Desperate times" what desperate times, the war was over. The Holocaust survivors could have been welcomed into the USA. The allied powers made a choice to create Israel. Knowing the allied powers, there must have been a commercial or tactical reason to create Israel because they did almost nothing for humanitarian reasons. The Marshall plan was tactical not humanitarian. I can't find a commercial reason for creating Israel.

The British empire repeatedly used triangulation to control maximum population with minimum power. But what did the allies want in the Middle East that could unify Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill? The answer that I come up with is to deny Germany access to Middle Eastern oil in WW3. The British and French had already made enemies out of the Arabs so preparations for WW3 ("generals always prepare for the last war") would have to assume the Arabs would be on the German's side. Denying Germany access to oil was an important part of how WW2 was won.

Even if I am wrong and the allies were trying to be humanitarian they still did not have the right to do what they did to the Palestinians, they only had the power to do it.

They surely did as one of the major allied powers. They could divide up Germany, redraw national borders, occupy nations and disband their armies. It was a desperate time that called for such bold measures. The Palestinians aren't divorced from history.

The UN/League of Nations/ British empire had exactly the same right to donate the land the Palestinians were living on to the Jews as the British empire/American colonists had to donate the land that Native Americans were living on to the American colonists/British empire.

[charles brough]

A friend recently told me that there are Palestinians who have been living in Jordanian refugee camps for 30-40 or more years. He seemed to believe that there were about a million in these camps, perhaps more. Is this true?

I have not read of "millions of camps," but there are definitely Palestinians scattered all over the Near East because Israel took their homes and land when it conquered them. They were exiled. They want the right to return, but will not get it because if they did, they would have a majority in the Israeli government and it would end up a HAMAS rather than a JUDAIC state.

charles
http://atheistic-science.com

[pjdude1219]

You have to remember that the pro-israel people like spider think it is perfectly acceptable to deny the majority of a population of their right so long as the minority is jewish. Not a single one of them one this site is honest enough to admit that the creation of Israel required denying the palestinian arabs their right to self-determination. Also for those of you who counter but what about the jews right to self-determination. They didn't have one simply because any way to give them one would have denied the majority the right and in nothing that I have read about self-determination says its ok to strip the right of self-determination of the majority so the minority can have it.

[outlandish]

You have to remember that the pro-israel people like spider think it is perfectly acceptable to deny the majority of a population of their right so long as the minority is jewish.
sadly, the exact thing herzl wanted. spider and the rest are herzl's minions


Not a single one of them one this site is honest enough to admit that the creation of Israel required denying the palestinian arabs their right to self-determination.
one of the fundemental pillars of zionism (and it's implementation) is the complete dehumanising of the palestinian people, a complete reduction of them to level of sub human/terrorits/fanatics in the perception of the zionists. you see its easier to erase a peoples if you don't consider them human at all. This was the same tactic ironically implemented by hitler and the nazis, dehumanising the jews, to "legitimise" all the atrocities perpetuated against them.

[spidergoat]

...Not a single one of them one this site is honest enough to admit that the creation of Israel required denying the palestinian arabs their right to self-determination. ....

It didn't, they just had to do it someplace other than Israel.

[pjdude1219]

It didn't, they just had to do it someplace other than Israel.

I don't know how to respond to this. The disconnect from reality and morality doesn't leave me an avenue to go down.



I mean how can you say that the creation of Israel denied the palestinian arabs in their the right of self determination when they weren't allowed to choose their political destiny. You basicly just said that since Israel annexed almost all of their land that fuck them they can't have a country.




Spider the concept of self determination is based on a group of people living on a certain area of land. Its the right to be your own political entity.

[spidergoat]

No, self-determination is a political goal virtually independent of territory (there might be some consideration for defensibility). Note that Israel is the only real democracy in the Middle East, so much for self-determination.

[pjdude1219]

No, self-determination is a political goal virtually independent of territory (there might be some consideration for defensibility). Note that Israel is the only real democracy in the Middle East, so much for self-determination.

yes because its all so common for people to go yeah we want are own country but fuck we'll leave are homes and livelyhoods behind.

[spidergoat]

They didn't have to leave.

[StrawDog]

No, self-determination is a political goal virtually independent of territory (there might be some consideration for defensibility). Note that Israel is the only real democracy in the Middle East, so much for self-determination.

If democracy stands for the oppression and slaughter of a people to achieve political goals, do you stand up for 'democracy"? :(

[spidergoat]

It doesn't, and I would argue that Israel is pursuing a strategic goal of ensuring it's citizen's security.

[pjdude1219]

They didn't have to leave.

Yes because it would have been much more intelligent to remain in a war zone. and most of them didn't want to leave they were forced out.

[StrawDog]

It doesn't, and I would argue that Israel is pursuing a strategic goal of ensuring it's citizen's security.

Or perhaps one can argue that Israel is pursuing a strategic goal of ethnic cleansing. The facts are freely available.

Here are some of the facts Dromi ignores or wilfully misrepresents. First, Hamas is the democratically elected government of the Palestinian people, not the corrupt regime led by Mahmoud Abbas. Second, Hamas spokesmen have repeatedly declared their readiness for a long-term ceasefire. Khalid Mish'al recently did so on these pages (Comment, 6 January). Third, Hamas has a solid record of observing ceasefires, while Israel has a consistent record of sabotaging them. Fourth, even during the ceasefire Israel did not lift its economic blockade of the 1.5 million inhabitants of Gaza, a form of collective punishment forbidden by international law. Fifth, the offensive unleashed in Gaza was illegal, immoral and unnecessary. If all Israel wanted was to stop rocket attacks from Gaza, all it had to do was to observe the ceasefire brokered by Egypt in June 2008.
(Professor Avi Shlaim-http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jan/26/gaza-war-hamas-israel)

[spidergoat]

That's nonsense on several counts. Hamas was elected, but elections aren't necessarily democracy. They have/are a militia, not a legitimate political party. Hamas technically violates ceasefires constantly. During a ceasefire, rocket attacks do not stop completely, but continue at a reduced rate of 1-4 per day (I'm don't think that's a deal-breaker, but don't accuse Israel of being the one that breaks cease-fire deals). They use ceasefires to re-arm, because they are committed to destroying Israel, that makes them a mortal enemy to Israel. It might be possible to negotiate with them, but I'm doubtful. Israel is not ethnic cleansing, that just amounts to propaganda. One could argue that Israel's actions recently in Gaza were illegal, but everything Hamas does is also illegal, so that's the pot calling the kettle black. The blockade is intended to prevent arms smuggling, food and medicine are let through. If Gazans want a better situation, they just have to give up terrorism.

[S.A.M.]

The blockade is intended to prevent arms smuggling, food and medicine are let through

Thats false. About 100 trucks of food are required everyday. For the last 2 years until January, Israel was sending in 15 per day, since January about 9 every two weeks.

For medicines, also the same. Not enough to die, barely enough to survive.

- The widespread erosion of human rights in the Palestinian West Bank and Gaza strip is denying Palestinians access to basic health care and preventing medical schools from functioning properly, according to correspondence published online Jan. 9 in The Lancet.

David Worth of York Hospital in York, the United Kingdom, and colleagues went on a fact-finding tour of the Palestinian territories in November 2008 and report on the effects of restriction of movement on access to health care, lengthy commutes for health care workers and interruption of medical studies.

Under a blockade, residents in Gaza are denied access to essential medical supplies as well as food and fuel, the authors found, and exit permits for treatment outside Gaza are being granted only in exchange for intelligence gathering, according to Physicians for Human Rights-Israel.

"Our experience in the West Bank caused us grave concerns, which have been realized more rapidly and devastatingly than any of us could have anticipated, in the current disproportionate attacks by Israeli forces on Gaza," the authors write. "This report is for our colleagues around the world who might be unaware of the deliberate erosion of human rights in both the West Bank and Gaza. We suggest that, in view of the failure of other measures to influence those in power, serious consideration be given to targeted academic and trade boycotts."

http://www.modernmedicine.com/modernmedicine/Modern+Medicine+Now/Health-Care-Another-Victim-of-Gaza-Blockade/ArticleNewsFeed/Article/detail/574691?contextCategoryId=40137

They actually ran out of food and closed the food centers


Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas Saturday said Israel's blockade of the Gaza Strip was a "war crime," as the United Nations closed its food aid distribution centers in Gaza on Saturday.

"I would like to draw the attention of the international community to the tragedy that our people are enduring in Gaza and I call on them to intervene to end the unfair siege... which constitutes a war crime against our Palestinian people," Abbas said in published remarks.

The UN said it had to close the centers after the blockade, imposed in response cross-border rocket attacks, depleted its food reserves.

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1037504.html

[spidergoat]

Israel doesn't control all of Gaza's borders. They are at war with Israel, why should Israel comply with humanitarian concerns when their citizens are being bombed?

[S.A.M.]

Its called the Geneva Conventions put in place after Jews were starved by the Nazis.

[spidergoat]

Something Hamas knows nothing about.

[S.A.M.]

Neither do the Jews apparently, don't know why anyone even bothers with a holocaust memorial anymore, its clearly nothing but a sham.

[spidergoat]

Israel has arguably committed violations to the Geneva Concentions, but it's rather irrelevent to the main issues here. You are just using this as the latest excuse for jihad.

[StrawDog]

That's nonsense on several counts. Hamas was elected, but elections aren't necessarily democracy. They have/are a militia, not a legitimate political party. Hamas technically violates ceasefires constantly.

It was a free and fair election. Israel have a militia, its called the IDF? What is your point? Israel chose not to recognize Hamas, so dialogue could not be initiated.

During a ceasefire, rocket attacks do not stop completely, but continue at a reduced rate of 1-4 per day (I'm don't think that's a deal-breaker, but don't accuse Israel of being the one that breaks cease-fire deals). They use ceasefires to re-arm, because they are committed to destroying Israel, that makes them a mortal enemy to Israel. It might be possible to negotiate with them, but I'm doubtful. Israel is not ethnic cleansing, that just amounts to propaganda. One could argue that Israel's actions recently in Gaza were illegal, but everything Hamas does is also illegal, so that's the pot calling the kettle black. The blockade is intended to prevent arms smuggling, food and medicine are let through. If Gazans want a better situation, they just have to give up terrorism.

This is all hearsay, you need to state your sources.

[spidergoat]

It's common knowledge in Israel. Anyway, the political parties of Israel do not have their own militias.

[StrawDog]

It's common knowledge in Israel. Anyway, the political parties of Israel do not have their own militias.

Common knowledge is not a source. The IDF has its roots in Jewish militias. Fact.

[spidergoat]

Not partisan militias.

[StrawDog]

The fact remains. What Israel committed in Gaza recently and in the past can ONLY be described as an ATROCITY.
The fact remains. Hamas is a democratically elected government.
The fact remains. Israel broke the ceasefire, invoking retaliation as a pretext for invading Gaza.

In a moral world Israel would be held accountable. :(

[spidergoat]

Israel didn't break the ceasefire.
Hamas was merely elected in a highly dubious election, nothing like Democracy exists there.
Israel was arguably defending itself against terrorists who hide among civilians.

I understand your argument, but Hamas is far from moral. It would be hypocritical to condemn Israel and not Hamas. They sometimes shell border crossings and raid humanitarian shipments. They have an interest in making the lives of their own people hell.

[StrawDog]

Israel didn't break the ceasefire.

Sadly they did. CNN confirms Israel Broke Ceasefire First http://www.dominionpaper.ca/weblogs/geordie/2435

Hamas was merely elected in a highly dubious election, nothing like Democracy exists there.

No, there was independent observers who verified a free and fair election.

Israel was arguably defending itself against terrorists who hide among civilians.

Hamas was arguably defending itself against Israeli oppression and aggression.

I understand your argument, but Hamas is far from moral. It would be hypocritical to condemn Israel and not Hamas. They sometimes shell border crossings and raid humanitarian shipments. They have an interest in making the lives of their own people hell.

Hamas is not free from wrongdoing. I have never stated that. I condemn ALL avoidable violence. The disproportionate response against the Palestinians, based on highly dubious grounds for invasion and the use of illegal weapons against an overwhelmingly civilian population is a undeniable ATROCITY.

[quadraphonics]

Hamas is not free from wrongdoing. I have never stated that. I condemn ALL avoidable violence. The disproportionate response against the Palestinians, based on highly dubious grounds for invasion and the use of illegal weapons against an overwhelmingly civilian population is a undeniable ATROCITY.

Likewise, under normal definitions of proportionality, Hamas's responses against Israelis constitute undeniable atrocities.

[S.A.M.]

What normal definitions work in an occupation?

[StrawDog]

Likewise, under normal definitions of proportionality, Hamas's responses against Israelis constitute undeniable atrocities.

Yes, an atrocity is an atrocity. But define "normal definitions of proportionality".

The facts in this instance are:

Up to 10 times as many Palestinians were killed as Israelis. The Palestinian Ministry of Health says 1,314 Palestinians were killed, of whom 412 were children or teenagers under 18, and 110 were women. On the Israeli side, there were 13 deaths between 27 December and 17 January, of whom three were civilians killed by rockets fired from Gaza. Of the 10 soldiers killed, four were lost to "friendly fire".
(http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/a-shameful-war-israel-in-the-dock-over-assault-on-gaza-1515320.html)

[Dinosaur]

Charles Brough: I said “about a million in these camps” — not “ Millions of camps.”

Various others: The following (& similar) postings is a distortion of the historical facts.Not a single one of them one this site is honest enough to admit that the creation of Israel required denying the palestinian arabs their right to self-determinationIn circa late 1947 or early 1948, Palestine was under the jurisdiction of the British. Prior to the British, Turkey & the Ottoman empire were in charge.

There was an area called Palestine (I think), but the people who lived there (Jews & Arabs) were not in control of the government. When the UN voted to end British rule, the area was carved into Jewish & Arab areas, with each group given the right to run their area. This was probably the first time in a thousand or more years that so-called Palestinians were given the right to run their own country.

I have often wondered what would have happened if 5 arab nations had not started a war to take control & oust the Jews from the area allotted to them. Perhaps the Palestinians would now have an area governed by them.

As a result of that war, Jordan had control of the West Bank, Israel had control of various other parts of Palestine, Palestinians were in the Gaza Strip, and I do not remember other details.


Note, however, that Jordan later annexed the West Bank and never turned control of it over to the Palestinians. Jordan never allowed Palestinians who had left the West Bank area to return.

When Israel tokk control of the Wet Bank after a (I think) 1967 war, they at least offered to give control to The palestininas as part of a negotiated peace.

My reading of the history of the conflict since 1948 indicates that the ordinary Palestinians have been pawns used to further the political ambitions of their leaders and the leaders of various Arab countries.

[S.A.M.]

None of the ME "countries" existed before 1900 neither did many of the Asian "countries". Nationalism is very 19th century. But kingdoms? Even 2000 years on, they can be "allotted" by third parties

[quadraphonics]

But define "normal definitions of proportionality".

Usual definitions of proportionality are concerned with balancing expected collateral damage against expected military benefits. Since Hamas's actions are designed to maximize collateral damage, while providing negligible (even negative) military benefit (i.e., the forseeable result is that MORE Palestinians die than if Hamas had not carried out the operation), they cannot be construed as proportional.

It's not simply a matter of being allowed to kill as many civilians as the other side does. You're only allowed to kill civilians if it can reasonably be expected to result in a comparable benefit to you (for example, saving a similar number of your own civilians). Even if the other side kills ten times as many civilians as you do, if you shoot even one of their civilians without a good reason, that action is disproportionate. Likewise, it is possible that the side that killed 10 times as many civilians was acting proportionately, provided the military benefits of doing so were in proportion to the death toll. Unlikely, sure, but not inconceivable. The point is that you can't tell just by looking at death tolls alone.

The large civilian toll on the Palestinian side would justify a similar death toll on the Israeli side if Hamas incurred that damage in actions that could reasonably be expected to prevent similar losses of Palestinian life. But given that their actions will clearly result in MORE Palestinian deaths, that doesn't apply.

You are never allowed to target civilians, which of course Hamas does openly, as a matter of policy. That's actually a more important point than proportionality, and it should be noted that Hamas' ongoing targetting of Israeli civilians creates a situation where Israel can cause substantial collateral damage to Gaza and still be proportional. Maybe not as much as they DID cause, but a lot...

One can certainly make the case that Israel's actions have been disproportionate (and many people have). But there is simply no room at all to argue that Hamas's actions are proportionate. Hamas doesn't even aspire to such a status in the first place, so this is hardly surprising. So we're left with a nasty situation: one side that doesn't live up to its claims of proportionality, against another that doesn't even accept the premise of proportionality in the first place.

[S.A.M.]

Hmm history doesn't support you. The mujahideen and the Irgun both used the same tactics against the soviet and British respectively. One could say that the experience in the west bank shows that Hamas have retained more ground than fatah and will now likely win support in the west bank as well. It is also in their interest if their puny rockets result in massive and disproportionate attacks by Israel. I've seen American Jews who were in israel over the holidays and they are unable to stomach what they have seen. To American ears, Israeli rhetoric and anti-Arab propagand sounds extremely racist. The Israelis have gotten used to it, but young American boys with a history of native American genocide and the civil rights movement are uneasy at the comparisons they make in their minds. So it would seem that the undirected rockets of Hamas are more beneficial in getting then the attention they seek than carpet bombing is, in getting Israel it's military goals.

[quadraphonics]

The mujahideen and the Irgun both used the same tactics against the soviet and British respectively.

False. Neither the mujahideen nor Irgun ever attacked the Soviet Union/Britain, respectively. The situations are simply not comparable. There weren't even substantial numbers of Soviet civilians in Afghanistan, so it's meaningless to even talk about using the same tactics.


One could say that the experience in the west bank shows that Hamas have retained more ground than fatah and will now likely win support in the west bank as well.

The pursuit of internal political capital is not considered a valid justification for incurring civilian casualties (although I have no doubt that this is what motivates Hamas). Only military gains are counted in the usual definitions of proportionality, as I thought I made quite clear.

If anything, forgoing proportionality entirely in the pursuit of political capital is worse than failing to live up to a professed policy of proportionality.

Likewise, if it is the case that launching disporportionate attacks on Israel results in greater popularity amongst the Palestinians, then the Palestinians (and their apologists) have no ground to complain about being subjected to disporportionate attacks themselves.


It is also in their interest if their puny rockets result in massive and disproportionate attacks by Israel.

I strongly disagree.


I've seen American Jews who were in israel over the holidays and they are unable to stomach what they have seen.

And yet, such things have been occurring for decades, with no perceptible advantage accruing to Palestine.

I know plenty of Americans, Jews and otherwise, that are equally unable to stomach the behavior of Hamas. I have not met a single American that has changed his views on the conflict as a result of the recent fighting. More to the point, Israelis overwhelmingly see the actions as justified, and so are made less likely than ever to desist.

Even if Hamas somehow won an international popularity contest by murdering civilians in cold blood (which is a ridiculous proposition), it wouldn't amount to anything. This is a war, not a contest for sympathy.


To American ears, Israeli rhetoric and anti-Arab propagand sounds extremely racist.

Likewise, Arab rhetoric and anti-Jew propaganda.

The thing about popularity contests is that it's not helpful to make the other side look bad, if you end up making yourself look even worse in the process.


The Israelis have gotten used to it, but young American boys with a history of native American genocide and the civil rights movement are uneasy at the comparisons they make in their minds.

Well, this has been going on for generations now, and it doesn't seem to have made much difference. Also, Americans don't generally feel particularly guilty over the fate of the natives, and to the extent they do, it's not something that they identify with Palestine or any other old world locations.

It may be that Israel's image took a hit in recent months, but image is not a zero-sum game. It is perfectly possible for people to be even more disgusted with Hamas than they are with Israel and, indeed, this seems to be the case for the most part.

Not that I agree with the overemphasis on US popular opinion here. If this issue is to be solved, it must be by the actual parties to the conflict. The implied idea of America swooping in and imposing the "right" solution is a ridiculous fantasy. American public opinion is already roughly where it should be (i.e., get them to stop killing eachother, and instead negotiate a final status agreement). The whole problem is that such an outcome is not the kind of thing that can be imposed by an outside power. We can only impose violent solutions, like the destruction or expulsion of one side or the other.


So it would seem that the undirected rockets of Hamas are more beneficial in getting then the attention they seek than carpet bombing is, in getting Israel it's military goals.

I don't agree. The rocket attacks have povided Hamas with uniformly negative attention, so much so that a sufficient portion of the world was willing to let Israel carpet bomb Gaza in return. What did Israel lose in the process?

[S.A.M.]

For one thing, I saw more Jews in the pro-Palestine rally than in the pro-Israel one. I'm not worried about the old people. America is becoming a minority majority state now and has a black President. The younger people are not going to see the Ressurection. They are going to see Apartheid; of the three birthright Jews, one could not get over the fact that Israel had cut off water and electricity. That was his epiphany on this trip.

[quadraphonics]

For one thing, I saw more Jews in the pro-Palestine rally than in the pro-Israel one.

Anecdotal and, anyway, the number of Americans who go to a rally before promptly forgetting all about it has little bearing on the course of the conflict, and none of the question of proportionality.

You probably would have seen 10 times as many people at the "Both-Sides-Are-Idiots" rally, had there been one.


America is becoming a minority majority state now and has a black President.

None of which makes it more likely to like the Palestinians, or less likely to like the Israelis. It's a dirty secret that minorities in America tend to be extremely racist and, since 9/11, black and hispanic people (who account for most of the minorities) have been openly hostile to Arabs and Muslims. It is a huge mistake to imagine that they identify with the side you see as the underdog just because they may have been underdogs themselves (notice the strong black and hispanic support for anti-gay laws in the recent election, for example).


The younger people are not going to see the Ressurection.


???


They are going to see Apartheid;

Americans have been growing up seeing "Apartheid" there for generations now. Certainly, it has been that way since long before I was born. What is different now from, say, the 1970's?

[S.A.M.]

I suppose we see different sides of the issue; you sound like a Zionist so I'm guessing there is no converting you. But the differences I see are all the ones I did not expect to see either and I am actually pretty pleasantly surprised by what I have seen. Notwithstanding the vulgar displays in pro-palestinian rallies, Pandora's box has been opened. Jews are wearing keffiyehs and standing with Palestinians; 60 minutes put on an amazing show showing the Palestinian narrative, the viewership of al Jazeera went up 600% in the United States

Its a whole new world

[Buffalo Roam]

I suppose we see different sides of the issue; you sound like a Zionist so I'm guessing there is no converting you. But the differences I see are all the ones I did not expect to see either and I am actually pretty pleasantly surprised by what I have seen. Notwithstanding the vulgar displays in pro-palestinian rallies, Pandora's box has been opened. Jews are wearing keffiyehs and standing with Palestinians; 60 minutes put on an amazing show showing the Palestinian narrative, the viewership of al Jazeera went up 600% in the United States

Its a whole new world

Woo Woo, SAM pulls the Zionist Card, that trumps all in Her truncated mind.

Call them a Zionist and then dismiss them as irrelevant.

Well SAM you are a Islamist.

[S.A.M.]

One more example of change:

The Israeli BDS movement comes to the US.

In the wake of Operation Cast Lead, a group of American university professors has for the first time launched a national campaign calling for an academic and cultural boycott of Israel.

While Israeli academics have grown used to such news from Great Britain, where anti-Israel groups several times attempted to establish academic boycotts, the formation of the United States movement marks the first time that a national academic boycott movement has come out of America. Israeli professors are not sure yet how big of an impact the one-week-old movement will have, but started discussing the significance of and possible counteractions against the campaign.

"As educators of conscience, we have been unable to stand by and watch in silence Israel's indiscriminate assault on the Gaza Strip and its educational institutions," the U.S. Campaign for the Academic & Cultural Boycott of Israel stated in its inaugural press release last Thursday. Speaking in its mission statement of the "censorship and silencing of the Palestine question in U.S. universities, as well as U.S. society at large," the group follows the usual pattern of such boycotts, calling for "non-violent punitive measures" against Israel, such as the implementation of divestment initiatives, "similar to those applied to South Africa in the apartheid era."

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1059775.html

[CptBork]

Noone remembers Black September anymore. What a shame. How can the world complain about double standards when criticizing Israel, and ignore the fact that the arabs have killed more Palestinians than Israel has? I guess if a non-westernized country has barbaric morals, the new fad is to judge them solely according to those morals, rather than holding them to the same standard as ourselves. What an enlightened position to take, why don't we white boys just bend over already and accept the punishment we have coming for our crimes? Noone questions Sudan's right to exist while it wages jihad on millions of Africans. Only Israel.

If the arabs had accepted an Israeli state on the small patches of land the jews legally owned prior to 1948, the Palestinians would be doing just fine today. But the arabs didn't want a jewish state on land that had already been conquered in violent jihad, so they declared war on the jews, lost, and the Palestinians paid the price for the stupidity of their "brethren". Why should the arab nations not be part of the solution to a problem they helped create? If Israel is going to give up land for a solution, let the arabs also give up land to the Palestinian state, or give citizenship to the "refugees" who were born on their soil and have lived there for up to 60 years already. I find it hard to believe the arabs would really notice if they had to give up 1% of their land, they don't even use most of it anyhow. But the truth is they will never do this, because the conflict with Israel never really had much to do with Palestinian rights in the first place.

[S.A.M.]

I don't think the question is of who can kill more Palestinians. I think the question is: how long can you occupy a country and treat people subhumanely before it becomes untenable?

Most people who watched the Gaza war on television saw a trapped population, cut off from food, water and electricity, with no place to run or hide. They saw white phosphorous clouds raining on them, destroyed schools and bombed hospitals and homes, streets with holes made by missiles. They saw infants with sniper wounds in the head and chest. They saw racist grafitti scrawled on the walls. What they did not see is any evidence of a need for all this.

[CptBork]

Yes, how long can the Jordanian monarchy occupy Palestinian land totalling several times the size of Israel, before it becomes untenable? How long can the arab nations keep people who were born on their soil in isolated refugee camps with no citizenship rights, before it becomes untenable? No excuses for Israel in cases where it could have avoided civilian casualties, no excuses for Hamas when it could have avoided fighting in populated areas. No excuses for any of the arab nations surrounding Israel either, who have done plenty to create and enhance the Palestinians' misery.

[S.A.M.]

Yes, how long can the Jordanian monarchy occupy Palestinian land totalling several times the size of Israel, before it becomes untenable? How long can the arab nations keep people who were born on their soil in isolated refugee camps with no citizenship rights, before it becomes untenable? No excuses for Israel in cases where it could have avoided civilian casualties, no excuses for Hamas when it could have avoided fighting in populated areas. No excuses for any of the arab nations surrounding Israel either, who have done plenty to create and enhance the Palestinians' misery.

Sure, but you don't have images of infants with sniper bullets coming from there nor are their children dying by the hundreds from bombings. Nor are they locked up and denied food and water. Nor are they pretending to be westernised democracies.

[Buffalo Roam]

Sure, but you don't have images of infants with sniper bullets coming from there nor are their children dying by the hundreds from bombings. Nor are they locked up and denied food and water. Nor are they pretending to be westernised democracies.

So, they are very good at controlling the media outlets to show only what they want seen.

But they are locked up, they have no freedom of travel, they have no rights of settlement, or citizenship even if they are second and third generation in the lands of, Jordan, Egypt, Syria, any of the Arab countries who keep them locked up in the Concentration Camps, oh excuse me, Refugee camps that the Arabs have relegated the Palestinians to for 60+ years.

So because they don't pretend to be westernized democracies, that makes their action more palatable, or because they are Muslim, you don't criticize them, to you I think it is both.

[S.A.M.]

So, they are very good at controlling the media outlets to show only what they want seen.

Funnily enough, it was Israel that banned the media. Which means that only those who were already inside, could report. As for "controlling", they did not show anything that did not happen.

American Jewish grandmothers who have gone there have more horror stories:



I entered the Gaza Strip on Wednesday night with my friend and fellow activist Sharon Wallace after waiting ten hours at the Egypt/Gaza. The destruction and trauma is even greater than I expected.

In just two short days I met with families who were given minutes to evacuate their homes and are now living in overcrowded UN schools; I saw the ruins of bombed greenhouses; I looked out the window at fields and roads torn up by the tread of Israeli tanks; and I visited two universities where MECA supports students with scholarships-severely damaged by Israeli bombs.

Out of all the devastation I have seen so far, there is one story in particular that I think the world needs to hear. I met a mother who was at home with her ten children when Israeli soldiers entered the house. The soldiers told her she had to choose five of her children to "give as a gift to Israel." As she screamed in horror they repeated the demand and told her she could choose or they would choose for her. Then these soldiers murdered five of her children in front of her. The concept of "Jewish morality" is truly dead. We can be fascists, terrorists, and Nazis just like everybody else.

In Zaytoun, I saw families gathering wood from charred trees. The almost two-year blockade of Gaza has deprived people cooking gas, so these terrified families build fires to keep warm and cook the little food they can get.

I talked to people on the street who told stories of wild dogs coming to eat their dead neighbors, relatives bleeding to death because Israel would not allow emergency workers into the area, and Israeli soldiers entering homes to beat and kill.

http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2009/01/23/18565352.php

[spidergoat]

Did she vote for the Hamas killers too?

[S.A.M.]

She's American. She probably voted for the black man. Or not. Unless you're asking about 5XSophies choice

[spidergoat]

Yeah, that's a really creative story...

[S.A.M.]

Ah, holocaust denial. Looks different from the other end, eh?

[spidergoat]

There is evidence on our side.

[S.A.M.]

There is evidence on our side.

Yeah, the Germans were better about keeping records.

[spidergoat]

And the Palistinians are good at making up fake stories for propaganda purposes.

[quadraphonics]

I suppose we see different sides of the issue; you sound like a Zionist so I'm guessing there is no converting you.

I have no idea what you even mean when you use the term "Zionist," but if it is anything beyond "someone with little stomach for S.A.M.'s rhetoric on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict," then I doubt it describes me very accurately. Certainly, it's not a label I'd self-apply.

And, no, I'm not interesting in being "converted," by you or anyone else.


But the differences I see are all the ones I did not expect to see either and I am actually pretty pleasantly surprised by what I have seen. Notwithstanding the vulgar displays in pro-palestinian rallies, Pandora's box has been opened. Jews are wearing keffiyehs and standing with Palestinians; 60 minutes put on an amazing show showing the Palestinian narrative, the viewership of al Jazeera went up 600% in the United States

Its a whole new world

None of that is new. What's new is that you live in the United States and so are actually aware of this stuff now. I'm glad it blew your mind, but don't get your hopes up too much.

[StrawDog]

And the Palistinians are good at making up fake stories for propaganda purposes.

And of course CNN, BBC, Fox and Sky are utterly unbiased in their constant representations of the Israelis as victims. :)

[spidergoat]

BBC is pretty good.

[StrawDog]

BBC is pretty good.

Yes of course. They are always happy to broadcast fund raising appeals for Gaza. :(

[Buffalo Roam]

I have no idea what you even mean when you use the term "Zionist," but if it is anything beyond "someone with little stomach for S.A.M.'s rhetoric on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict," then I doubt it describes me very accurately. Certainly, it's not a label I'd self-apply.

And, no, I'm not interesting in being "converted," by you or anyone else.



None of that is new. What's new is that you live in the United States and so are actually aware of this stuff now. I'm glad it blew your mind, but don't get your hopes up too much.


She is back in the United State?

Last I knew she had moved back to India, Mumbai, and Daddy's house.

[CheskiChips]

By the way...if I recall...most 'Palestinians' WERE Jordanian refugees. I would like to cite a couple things for this topic...

In his memoirs, Haled al Azm, the Syrian Prime Minister in 1948-49, also admitted the Arab role in persuading the refugees to leave:

“Since 1948 we have been demanding the return of the refugees to their homes. But we ourselves are the ones who encouraged them to leave. Only a few months separated our call to them to leave and our appeal to the United Nations to resolve on their return.”26
- The Memoirs of Haled al Azm, (Beirut, 1973), Part 1, pp. 386-387.

“The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians from the Zionist tyranny but, instead, they abandoned them, forced them to emigrate and to leave their homeland, and threw them into prisons similar to the ghettos in which the Jews used to live.”

— Palestinian Authority Prime Minister Mahmud Abbas ("Abu Mazen") 31Falastin a-Thaura, (March 1976).

On April 6, Operation Nachshon was launched to open the road to Jerusalem. The village of Deir Yassin was included on the list of Arab villages to be occupied as part of the operation. The following day Haganah commander David Shaltiel wrote to the leaders of the Lehi and Irgun:

I learn that you plan an attack on Deir Yassin. I wish to point out that the capture of Deir Yassin and its holding are one stage in our general plan. I have no objection to your carrying out the operation provided you are able to hold the village. If you are unable to do so I warn you against blowing up the village which will result in its inhabitants abandoning it and its ruins and deserted houses being occupied by foreign forces....Furthermore, if foreign forces took over, this would upset our general plan for establishing an airfield.33
Dan Kurzman, Genesis 1948, (OH: New American Library, Inc., 1970), p. 141.

The implied danger of repatriation did not prevent Israel from allowing some refugees to return and offering to take back a substantial number as a condition for signing a peace treaty. In 1949, Israel offered to allow families that had been separated during the war to return, to release refugee accounts frozen in Israeli banks (eventually released in 1953), to pay compensation for abandoned lands and to repatriate 100,000 refugees.
Prittie in Curtis, pp. 66-67.


“The Palestinian demand for the 'right of return' is totally unrealistic and would have to be solved by means of financial compensation and resettlement in Arab countries.”
— Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak