I've always thought those villages were built on the remains of Jewish communities that existed there a millennium before.
So no one will care when we raise these "American" communities to rebuild the "indian" cities of the past? I always wondered how a bunch of European Jews felt OK with raising cities of the current residents because their ancesters lived there thousands of years ago. Somebody help me with this one.
I always wondered how a bunch of European Jews felt OK with raising cities of the current residents because their ancesters lived there thousands of years ago. Somebody help me with this one.
I wouldn't say anyone felt "OK" about any of this. That's simplistic.
The events described here took place in the context of a war. And they must be understood in this context. The war was inititated against the Jewish communities there not only by the five surrounding Arab states, but the Palestinian civilian population as well. The Jewish leadership was willing to compromise on territory and never assumed an agressive stance toward the Palestinian civilian population. The avowed intention of the Arabs, on the other hand, was to kill and/or expell all of the Jews.
During the fighting that ensued, Arab villages were razed, notably those villages along the Tel Aviv-Jerusalem corridor that were being used to cut off supplies to Jerusalem in an attempt starve the Jewish population there. Jewish villages were also razed, notably in the Etzion Bloc south of Jerusalem where Jews had lived continuously since biblical times.
When the war was over, a large Palestinian civilian population remained in Israel. They've since become among the best educated and most prosperous Arab communties in the entire Middle East. (Their infant mortality rate, to choose just one indicator, is lower than that of African Americans.)
In contrast, not a single Jew was allowed to remain in the areas conquered by the Arabs.
In the years that followed, Jewish towns were then built throughout the country, some on the sites of former Palestinian villages. These towns were built to house not only the hundreds of thousands of stateless Jewish refugees that fled into Israel from Europe, but also the nearly 800,000 Jews whose property was confiscated and who were forced out of Arab and Muslim countries for being Jewish.
I always wondered how a bunch of European Jews felt OK with raising cities of the current residents because their ancesters lived there thousands of years ago. Somebody help me with this one.
I wouldn't say anyone felt "OK" about any of this. That's simplistic.
The events described here took place in the context of a war. And they must be understood in this context. The war was inititated against the Jewish communities there not only by the five surrounding Arab states, but the Palestinian civilian population as well. The Jewish leadership was willing to compromise on territory and never assumed an agressive stance toward the Palestinian civilian population. The avowed intention of the Arabs, on the other hand, was to kill and/or expell all of the Jews.
During the fighting that ensued, Arab villages were razed, notably those villages along the Tel Aviv-Jerusalem corridor that were being used to cut off supplies to Jerusalem in an attempt starve the Jewish population there. Jewish villages were also razed, notably in the Etzion Bloc south of Jerusalem where Jews had lived continuously since biblical times.
When the war was over, a large Palestinian civilian population remained in Israel. They've since become among the best educated and most prosperous Arab communties in the entire Middle East. (Their infant mortality rate, to choose just one indicator, is lower than that of African Americans.)
In contrast, not a single Jew was allowed to remain in the areas conquered by the Arabs.
In the years that followed, Jewish towns were then built throughout the country, some on the sites of former Palestinian villages. These towns were built to house not only the hundreds of thousands of stateless Jewish refugees that fled into Israel from Europe, but also the nearly 800,000 Jews whose property was confiscated and who were forced out of Arab and Muslim countries for being Jewish.
This still doesn't justify it. I believe in the late 19th century the US was at war with the Indian Tribes/Nation as well (remember Custer?). So like was stated earlier. Would you be OK with Native Americans razing american cities to re-populate it with Native american cities? How about whats left of the South American Native population rising up and re-taking over their countries because you know there were/are religious centers that were/are just as important to the Mayan and Aztec peoples. I am sure if the US backed them, they could make it happen. The fact is that there is always a give and take of land and power everywhere. I would realy like to see how everything would pan out between Israel and its neighbors without the US backing them (and other foreign coutnries not backing the arab states). Let them fight their own fights. If they can do it without outside interests being invovled then so be it. Granted thats a simplistic view and obviously would never happen.
I always wondered how a bunch of European Jews felt OK with raising cities of the current residents because their ancesters lived there thousands of years ago. Somebody help me with this one.
I wouldn't say anyone felt "OK" about any of this. That's simplistic.
The events described here took place in the context of a war. And they must be understood in this context. The war was inititated against the Jewish communities there not only by the five surrounding Arab states, but the Palestinian civilian population as well. The Jewish leadership was willing to compromise on territory and never assumed an agressive stance toward the Palestinian civilian population. The avowed intention of the Arabs, on the other hand, was to kill and/or expell all of the Jews.
During the fighting that ensued, Arab villages were razed, notably those villages along the Tel Aviv-Jerusalem corridor that were being used to cut off supplies to Jerusalem in an attempt starve the Jewish population there. Jewish villages were also razed, notably in the Etzion Bloc south of Jerusalem where Jews had lived continuously since biblical times.
When the war was over, a large Palestinian civilian population remained in Israel. They've since become among the best educated and most prosperous Arab communties in the entire Middle East. (Their infant mortality rate, to choose just one indicator, is lower than that of African Americans.)
In contrast, not a single Jew was allowed to remain in the areas conquered by the Arabs.
In the years that followed, Jewish towns were then built throughout the country, some on the sites of former Palestinian villages. These towns were built to house not only the hundreds of thousands of stateless Jewish refugees that fled into Israel from Europe, but also the nearly 800,000 Jews whose property was confiscated and who were forced out of Arab and Muslim countries for being Jewish.
This still doesn't justify it. I believe in the late 19th century the US was at war with the Indian Tribes/Nation as well (remember Custer?). So like was stated earlier. Would you be OK with Native Americans razing american cities to re-populate it with Native american cities? How about whats left of the South American Native population rising up and re-taking over their countries because you know there were/are religious centers that were/are just as important to the Mayan and Aztec peoples. I am sure if the US backed them, they could make it happen. The fact is that there is always a give and take of land and power everywhere. I would realy like to see how everything would pan out between Israel and its neighbors without the US backing them (and other foreign coutnries not backing the arab states). Let them fight their own fights. If they can do it without outside interests being invovled then so be it. Granted thats a simplistic view and obviously would never happen.
I don't know if I'd have problem with natives taking back North America. Its theirs & they had it stolen from them. Now they live on reserves& are slowly dying off. That must be awful.
I would realy like to see how everything would pan out between Israel and its neighbors without the US backing them (and other foreign coutnries not backing the arab states).
I always wondered how a bunch of European Jews felt OK with raising cities of the current residents because their ancesters lived there thousands of years ago. Somebody help me with this one.
I wouldn't say anyone felt "OK" about any of this. That's simplistic.
The events described here took place in the context of a war. And they must be understood in this context. The war was inititated against the Jewish communities there not only by the five surrounding Arab states, but the Palestinian civilian population as well. The Jewish leadership was willing to compromise on territory and never assumed an agressive stance toward the Palestinian civilian population. The avowed intention of the Arabs, on the other hand, was to kill and/or expell all of the Jews.
During the fighting that ensued, Arab villages were razed, notably those villages along the Tel Aviv-Jerusalem corridor that were being used to cut off supplies to Jerusalem in an attempt starve the Jewish population there. Jewish villages were also razed, notably in the Etzion Bloc south of Jerusalem where Jews had lived continuously since biblical times.
When the war was over, a large Palestinian civilian population remained in Israel. They've since become among the best educated and most prosperous Arab communties in the entire Middle East. (Their infant mortality rate, to choose just one indicator, is lower than that of African Americans.)
In contrast, not a single Jew was allowed to remain in the areas conquered by the Arabs.
In the years that followed, Jewish towns were then built throughout the country, some on the sites of former Palestinian villages. These towns were built to house not only the hundreds of thousands of stateless Jewish refugees that fled into Israel from Europe, but also the nearly 800,000 Jews whose property was confiscated and who were forced out of Arab and Muslim countries for being Jewish.
This still doesn't justify it. I believe in the late 19th century the US was at war with the Indian Tribes/Nation as well (remember Custer?). So like was stated earlier. Would you be OK with Native Americans razing american cities to re-populate it with Native american cities? How about whats left of the South American Native population rising up and re-taking over their countries because you know there were/are religious centers that were/are just as important to the Mayan and Aztec peoples. I am sure if the US backed them, they could make it happen. The fact is that there is always a give and take of land and power everywhere. I would realy like to see how everything would pan out between Israel and its neighbors without the US backing them (and other foreign coutnries not backing the arab states). Let them fight their own fights. If they can do it without outside interests being invovled then so be it. Granted thats a simplistic view and obviously would never happen.
I don't know if I'd have problem with natives taking back North America. Its theirs & they had it stolen from them. Now they live on reserves& are slowly dying off. That must be awful.
I agree, however historically speaking there is always the conquerer and the conquered. And the conquered are almost never treated well, and with the exception of Israel don't have outside groups come in to re-establish a conquered/over-run/culturally changed area to repopulate it with ONE of its original inhabitants... I mean the argument to me is weird, because why is it Jewish people that have the "right" to exist there... What about the populations that existed there before the Jewish people conquered it after being nomadic for so many hundreds of years? (And no I am not going to get religious, I am saying from a purely who was here first, second, third - I understand that it holds religious significance to Jewish populations, but it also holds religious significance to other groups as well which to me voids out religion as a reason because IMO no one person's religions is "better" than the next person's)
aparthied, concentration camps, etc. keep it up: soon enough these terms will have absolutely no meaning at all.
Sounds like you've got your mind made up. I don't know enough about the topic to form an opinion but I do know you need 2 sides to engage in a conflict.
This is soon to be yet ANOTHER 5 page Israel/Palestine thread.
Great. I can't wait.
Day, it sounds like you have your mind made up. Rootless only made a valid point about the misuse and overuse of very loaded words. There is nothing about his statement that implies an unwillingness to consider the issue from any number of possible perspectives. In fact, if he was was willing to embrace phrases like 'concentration camp' as appropriate ways of describing the Palestinian situation it would speak far more tellingly of counterproductive biases than his insistence on accuracy in language and reporting.
Danno, that was extremely well put.
I just happened to quote the last thing he wrote, not for the content but to address who I was talking to.
Like I said before, I don't know enough about the entire confict to even comment on it.
I will say that the whole thing is immensely saddening.
I haven't followed the debate in this thread thus far, although I do know a lil about the situation, and its place in (or behind) a lot of international politics.
I'm not posting to get into a discussion or argument with any one though - thought I'd add up a few more pic's i saw posted on another board:
Soldier: What the f*** are you doing? Banksy: You'll have to wait until it's finished. Soldier (to colleagues): Safety's off
Banksy also records on his website how an old Palestinian man said his painting made the wall look beautiful. Banksy thanked him, only to be told: 'We don't want it to be beautiful, we hate this wall. Go home.'
Banksy also records on his website how an old Palestinian man said his painting made the wall look beautiful. Banksy thanked him, only to be told: 'We don't want it to be beautiful, we hate this wall. Go home.'
I have to admit, those images are fantastic. Guy's got talent.
I also get a kick ouf ot the self-righteous western activist getting sonned by the locals he thinks he's helping. I've always found something a little condascending in the way many western activists approach their causes of the week.
Comments
So no one will care when we raise these "American" communities to rebuild the "indian" cities of the past? I always wondered how a bunch of European Jews felt OK with raising cities of the current residents because their ancesters lived there thousands of years ago. Somebody help me with this one.
I wouldn't say anyone felt "OK" about any of this. That's simplistic.
The events described here took place in the context of a war. And they must be understood in this context. The war was inititated against the Jewish communities there not only by the five surrounding Arab states, but the Palestinian civilian population as well. The Jewish leadership was willing to compromise on territory and never assumed an agressive stance toward the Palestinian civilian population. The avowed intention of the Arabs, on the other hand, was to kill and/or expell all of the Jews.
During the fighting that ensued, Arab villages were razed, notably those villages along the Tel Aviv-Jerusalem corridor that were being used to cut off supplies to Jerusalem in an attempt starve the Jewish population there. Jewish villages were also razed, notably in the Etzion Bloc south of Jerusalem where Jews had lived continuously since biblical times.
When the war was over, a large Palestinian civilian population remained in Israel. They've since become among the best educated and most prosperous Arab communties in the entire Middle East. (Their infant mortality rate, to choose just one indicator, is lower than that of African Americans.)
In contrast, not a single Jew was allowed to remain in the areas conquered by the Arabs.
In the years that followed, Jewish towns were then built throughout the country, some on the sites of former Palestinian villages. These towns were built to house not only the hundreds of thousands of stateless Jewish refugees that fled into Israel from Europe, but also the nearly 800,000 Jews whose property was confiscated and who were forced out of Arab and Muslim countries for being Jewish.
This still doesn't justify it. I believe in the late 19th century the US was at war with the Indian Tribes/Nation as well (remember Custer?). So like was stated earlier. Would you be OK with Native Americans razing american cities to re-populate it with Native american cities? How about whats left of the South American Native population rising up and re-taking over their countries because you know there were/are religious centers that were/are just as important to the Mayan and Aztec peoples. I am sure if the US backed them, they could make it happen. The fact is that there is always a give and take of land and power everywhere. I would realy like to see how everything would pan out between Israel and its neighbors without the US backing them (and other foreign coutnries not backing the arab states). Let them fight their own fights. If they can do it without outside interests being invovled then so be it. Granted thats a simplistic view and obviously would never happen.
I don't know if I'd have problem with natives taking back North America. Its theirs & they had it stolen from them. Now they live on reserves& are slowly dying off. That must be awful.
I agree, however historically speaking there is always the conquerer and the conquered. And the conquered are almost never treated well, and with the exception of Israel don't have outside groups come in to re-establish a conquered/over-run/culturally changed area to repopulate it with ONE of its original inhabitants... I mean the argument to me is weird, because why is it Jewish people that have the "right" to exist there... What about the populations that existed there before the Jewish people conquered it after being nomadic for so many hundreds of years? (And no I am not going to get religious, I am saying from a purely who was here first, second, third - I understand that it holds religious significance to Jewish populations, but it also holds religious significance to other groups as well which to me voids out religion as a reason because IMO no one person's religions is "better" than the next person's)
you mean, like Texas?
I actually heard the ba-du-dump of the drum after that one. LOL ; )
Danno, that was extremely well put.
I just happened to quote the last thing he wrote, not for the content but to address who I was talking to.
Like I said before, I don't know enough about the entire confict to even comment on it.
I will say that the whole thing is immensely saddening.
And with that, I'm out of this convo.
I'm not posting to get into a discussion or argument with any one though - thought I'd add up a few more pic's i saw posted on another board:
(Conversation reported on www.banksy.co.uk)
Soldier: What the f*** are you doing?
Banksy: You'll have to wait until it's finished. Soldier (to colleagues): Safety's off
Banksy also records on his website how an old Palestinian man said his painting made the wall look beautiful. Banksy thanked him, only to be told: 'We don't want it to be beautiful, we hate this wall. Go home.'
Great quote.
I also get a kick ouf ot the self-righteous western activist getting sonned by the locals he thinks he's helping. I've always found something a little condascending in the way many western activists approach their causes of the week.
: