The argument that the Palestinians have no right to object to the Israeli occupation of their land because they're all Arabs and look at all the "Arab" countries* out there is racist. As racist as arguing that it's amusing that black South Africans objected to apartheid when look at all the other black countries out there with no apartheid. Would you have found an equivalent map of Africa during the decades of apartheid so very funny?
*as various people have pointed out already, the map is false-to-fact, as many of the "Arab" countries aren't actually Arab: but hey, jokes don't have to be accurate to be funny: it't just that, as I said, I don't tend to find racist jokes funny.
Yeah, the place I stole it from had a disclaimer underneath that the countries were Muslim and not Arab (well, some were Arab, but not all).
Which would make it a religious joke, not a race one, of course.
Not that Arabs are a race, of course.
Oh, and it doesn't say that the Palestinians don't have a right to object. At least, I didn't read it that way. It says that the amount of fuss being made over Israel is out of proportion to the amount of land it takes up.
Oh, and it doesn't say that the Palestinians don't have a right to object. At least, I didn't read it that way. It says that the amount of fuss being made over Israel is out of proportion to the amount of land it takes up.
Exactly. The Israelis should just pack up and leave: the amount of fuss they make over being expected to share is unreasonable given the amount of land involved.
It does of course, depend on when you start counting.
But if we, say, pick 1947, when there were already large numbers of Jews living in the area and the UN suggested the partition, it was Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan that invaded.
Of course, the Jews then extended the area they had during the following conflicts, and the current people in charge are power-hungry idiots. But there have been Jewish people living there for a remarkably long time.
But there have been Jewish people living there for a remarkably long time.
But it wasn't until European and American settlers moved in, displacing the locals, and making it clear that they believed they had more right to the country than the locals did, based on a religious justification, that trouble started.
We'd agree, I think, that if First World settlers move in on a Third World country and try to take it over and run it to their liking that this is an aggressive move, even if the white settlers are waving the Bible about and claiming that the Bible gives them the right to do this.
We'd agree, I think, that if First World settlers move in on a Third World country and try to take it over and run it to their liking that this is an aggressive move, even if the white settlers are waving the Bible about and claiming that the Bible gives them the right to do this.
If I can snip this down to a more general statement: If settlers move in on a country and try to take it over and run it to their liking then this is an aggressive move.
Absolutely. But the whole situation in Northern Africa is sadly like this. Made more complex because there were very few actual countries there - there were tribes and towns and the occasional city sprinkled about, but by and large there weren't countries in the European sense (although in many ways concrete countries in Europe is a new concept too).
The European habit of drawing straight lines across areas and then handing control of them to a particulat tribe because they happened to be friendly is to blame for a lot of the problems over there. Not that I think the situation would be good otherwise, just different.
While the site is biased I was interested by the figures here showing that Palestine was largely made up of a vast commingling of different groups.
While the site is biased I was interested by the figures here showing that Palestine was largely made up of a vast commingling of different groups.
Well, the Israeli version of Palestinian history taught in Israeli schools is just that: ignore the people who have lived there for centuries, claim that most of the inhabitants moved in in the 19th century. That this is false by all historical accounts of Palestine that pre-date Israel doesn't seem to worry these revisionists.
What appears to be generally agreed on is that until the 20th century, Jews were less than 6% (http://www.palestine-net.com/history/bhist.html) of the population of Palestine: one religious group among others. The massive increase in the Jewish population of Palestine in the first half of the 20th century (well, okay, until 1948) was entirely European and American immigrants moving in, with the intention of taking over.
And yes, I consider this an aggressive act - while appreciating the historical context in which it happened. Nevertheless, the people against whom this aggression was directed were not the people who had been persecuting the Jews in the countries from which they came.
I feel about Israel the way I used to feel about South Africa. It was impossible to argue that the white South Africans ought to "go home": South Africa was their home and had been for generations. Nevertheless, they were descended from colonists who had moved in and were taking over. Israel isn't (yet) an apartheid state to the extent that South Africa was for more than forty years - but it's clearly heading in that direction, and informally, considering the discrimination faced by Arab Israelis, it already is.
Israel achieved its right to exist by an act of aggression by the neighbouring Muslim countries - not their invasion in 1948, but the expulsion of Middle Eastern Jews into Israel at about that time. From then on, Israel ceased to be uncomplicatedly a new colonialist nation, white settlers driving out natives, and became a much more realistic Middle Eastern country - though from what Israelis tell me, Middle Eastern Jews were and are also discriminated against. (In fact, there is effectively a four-tier social structure: the European/American Jews at the top, the Middle Eastern Jews underneath, the black Jews from Ethiopia third rung down,and at the very bottom, legally discriminated against in many ways, the Israeli Arabs.)
Well, actually, I'm Stephen. But I'm also curious.
The Israelis should just pack up and leave
Where do you suggest that they packup and leave to? Any mass migration like that is going to displace other people who are going to get pissed off and a proportion of them are likely to express their anger with batons, petrol bombs, guns and explosives. Also, a lot (most even) of Israelis were born there and so you would be displacing them from their homeland.
I think that it is a very small number of people on each side who are causing the problems. However those few people scare the majority of the other side and frightened people are usually suspicious of anyone and anything that looks like who/what is scaring them. Those on their own side play on that fear to turn it into hatred. For example, suicide bombers, as have been proven by recent events in Turkey, are very difficult to spot until they blow themselves up. By which time it is too late. How is the ordinary Israeli to tell the difference between a suicide bomber and a Palestinian, they both look the same. It's not like they wear badges which say "I am a suicide bomber and am going to kill you" or "I am an ordinary Palestinian who is just trying to make a living."!
My comment Exactly. The Israelis should just pack up and leave: the amount of fuss they make over being expected to share is unreasonable given the amount of land involved. was a sarcastic rejoinder to Andrew's comment It says that the amount of fuss being made over Israel is out of proportion to the amount of land it takes up.
My comment was sarcasm: it was not a serious suggestion that the Israelis should pack up and leave.
Oh well. It didn't come over as sarcastic to me. Possibly because I do know some people who seriously believe that the Israelis should leave Israel and 'give it back' to the Palestinians. A lot of them haven't quite thought it through.
Sarcasm and irony are two "tones" that come across very badly in online communication. I realise it would be better to avoid using them entirely, or to use only with some signal (< Fe > is in use on a mailing list I belong to) to indicate irony/sarcasm.
Possibly because I do know some people who seriously believe that the Israelis should leave Israel and 'give it back' to the Palestinians. A lot of them haven't quite thought it through.
Sure. As there are people who seriously believe that the conflict in Israel/Palestine is all the fault of the Palestinians, who should just have politely accepted their exile. The picture Andrew used to start this thread is indicative of that way of thinking: that the Palestinians are making a terrible fuss about nothing, look at all the "Arab" countries that still exist.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
*as various people have pointed out already, the map is false-to-fact, as many of the "Arab" countries aren't actually Arab: but hey, jokes don't have to be accurate to be funny: it't just that, as I said, I don't tend to find racist jokes funny.
no subject
Which would make it a religious joke, not a race one, of course.
Not that Arabs are a race, of course.
Oh, and it doesn't say that the Palestinians don't have a right to object. At least, I didn't read it that way. It says that the amount of fuss being made over Israel is out of proportion to the amount of land it takes up.
no subject
Exactly. The Israelis should just pack up and leave: the amount of fuss they make over being expected to share is unreasonable given the amount of land involved.
no subject
no subject
no subject
But if we, say, pick 1947, when there were already large numbers of Jews living in the area and the UN suggested the partition, it was Egypt, Syria, Lebanon and Jordan that invaded.
Of course, the Jews then extended the area they had during the following conflicts, and the current people in charge are power-hungry idiots. But there have been Jewish people living there for a remarkably long time.
no subject
But it wasn't until European and American settlers moved in, displacing the locals, and making it clear that they believed they had more right to the country than the locals did, based on a religious justification, that trouble started.
We'd agree, I think, that if First World settlers move in on a Third World country and try to take it over and run it to their liking that this is an aggressive move, even if the white settlers are waving the Bible about and claiming that the Bible gives them the right to do this.
At least, I hope we'd agree.
no subject
If I can snip this down to a more general statement:
If settlers move in on a country and try to take it over and run it to their liking then this is an aggressive move.
Absolutely. But the whole situation in Northern Africa is sadly like this. Made more complex because there were very few actual countries there - there were tribes and towns and the occasional city sprinkled about, but by and large there weren't countries in the European sense (although in many ways concrete countries in Europe is a new concept too).
The European habit of drawing straight lines across areas and then handing control of them to a particulat tribe because they happened to be friendly is to blame for a lot of the problems over there. Not that I think the situation would be good otherwise, just different.
While the site is biased I was interested by the figures here showing that Palestine was largely made up of a vast commingling of different groups.
no subject
Well, the Israeli version of Palestinian history taught in Israeli schools is just that: ignore the people who have lived there for centuries, claim that most of the inhabitants moved in in the 19th century. That this is false by all historical accounts of Palestine that pre-date Israel doesn't seem to worry these revisionists.
What appears to be generally agreed on is that until the 20th century, Jews were less than 6% (http://www.palestine-net.com/history/bhist.html) of the population of Palestine: one religious group among others. The massive increase in the Jewish population of Palestine in the first half of the 20th century (well, okay, until 1948) was entirely European and American immigrants moving in, with the intention of taking over.
And yes, I consider this an aggressive act - while appreciating the historical context in which it happened. Nevertheless, the people against whom this aggression was directed were not the people who had been persecuting the Jews in the countries from which they came.
I feel about Israel the way I used to feel about South Africa. It was impossible to argue that the white South Africans ought to "go home": South Africa was their home and had been for generations. Nevertheless, they were descended from colonists who had moved in and were taking over. Israel isn't (yet) an apartheid state to the extent that South Africa was for more than forty years - but it's clearly heading in that direction, and informally, considering the discrimination faced by Arab Israelis, it already is.
Israel achieved its right to exist by an act of aggression by the neighbouring Muslim countries - not their invasion in 1948, but the expulsion of Middle Eastern Jews into Israel at about that time. From then on, Israel ceased to be uncomplicatedly a new colonialist nation, white settlers driving out natives, and became a much more realistic Middle Eastern country - though from what Israelis tell me, Middle Eastern Jews were and are also discriminated against. (In fact, there is effectively a four-tier social structure: the European/American Jews at the top, the Middle Eastern Jews underneath, the black Jews from Ethiopia third rung down,and at the very bottom, legally discriminated against in many ways, the Israeli Arabs.)
no subject
I'm Curious
Where do you suggest that they packup and leave to? Any mass migration like that is going to displace other people who are going to get pissed off and a proportion of them are likely to express their anger with batons, petrol bombs, guns and explosives. Also, a lot (most even) of Israelis were born there and so you would be displacing them from their homeland.
I think that it is a very small number of people on each side who are causing the problems. However those few people scare the majority of the other side and frightened people are usually suspicious of anyone and anything that looks like who/what is scaring them. Those on their own side play on that fear to turn it into hatred. For example, suicide bombers, as have been proven by recent events in Turkey, are very difficult to spot until they blow themselves up. By which time it is too late. How is the ordinary Israeli to tell the difference between a suicide bomber and a Palestinian, they both look the same. It's not like they wear badges which say "I am a suicide bomber and am going to kill you" or "I am an ordinary Palestinian who is just trying to make a living."!
You see what I'm getting at?
Re: I'm Curious
My comment was sarcasm: it was not a serious suggestion that the Israelis should pack up and leave.
Re: I'm Curious
Re: I'm Curious
Sarcasm and irony are two "tones" that come across very badly in online communication. I realise it would be better to avoid using them entirely, or to use only with some signal (< Fe > is in use on a mailing list I belong to) to indicate irony/sarcasm.
Possibly because I do know some people who seriously believe that the Israelis should leave Israel and 'give it back' to the Palestinians. A lot of them haven't quite thought it through.
Sure. As there are people who seriously believe that the conflict in Israel/Palestine is all the fault of the Palestinians, who should just have politely accepted their exile. The picture Andrew used to start this thread is indicative of that way of thinking: that the Palestinians are making a terrible fuss about nothing, look at all the "Arab" countries that still exist.
Re: I'm Curious
Re: I'm Curious