(no subject)

[curiouswombat]

I do not often discuss politics on my journal - I'm not a very political person. However I have found myself writing long comments on a couple of my friends journals on the subject of the current events in Lebanon, and the fact that Hamas in Gaza and the West Bank has it written into its constitution that it wishes to demolish the State of Israel and return the land to the Palestinians.

I felt that it would only be right to say these things under my own name, so to speak. I fear that my position may upset my friends who are Jewish, and this is not at all my aim, but I do believe that the current Israeli government are wrong.



Following a link to the constitution of Hamas in beckyzoole's journal I commented -

That Hamas state clearly that they believe the land known until recently as Palestine is theirs is no surprise.

The problem is that their beliefs and those of the founders of the modern state of Israel are identical - both believe that God gave that land to them. But the Muslim Palestinians believe that He punished the Jews by taking it from them and giving it to the Palestinians.

They see it as their land - because of course, until 1946 it primarily was, although not all the Palestinians are Muslim, a large minority are Christian.

And so the organisations who believe in driving out the people who were just shipped in and given the houses and land of the long-standing population will of course have followers, just as the Zionists who believed that they should be given the land had followers - those who inhabit the land today.

People will vote for Hamas because the less militant politicians have been unable to get for them any of the things they were promised when the 1946 land-grab happened. The British, Americans etc. generously gave land, which was not theirs to give, to the Jewish people, but the owners have not, as far as I can tell from a lot of reading around the subject over the years, received a penny piece of the promised compensation.

Had the international community done anything to improve the lot of the people they simply threw out of Palestine, those people might be less likely to follow Hamas, who see the return of the land as their divine right. Just as I know that my mother received payment when she left the house in which I was brought up and so I no longer see it as my birthright. Had she simply been forced out of it at gunpoint, forced into something akin to a hovel, and told 'tough!' I might feel that I still had a good claim on the property.

Had the Israeli government been persuaded by the international community to get out of the land they occupied, and back to their agreed borders, and to pay what had been promised, it is possible that many of the displaced persons would have become settled in the Gaza strip and the West Bank and no longer be all that bothered by the calls of those who want to reclaim the land. This would have relied on the countries who actually do own those areas finding that acceptable, but it is quite possible that they would.

As long as the USA has the knee jerk reaction of always vetoing any attempts by the international community to try to make Israel obey international laws and improve the lot of the displaced Palestinians, organisations like Hamas will have followers.

I have never understood why, as the decision to give the Jewish people a homeland was that mainly of the USA and the UK they didn't give them one of the central states of the US, or a county like Lincolnshire in England. Yes there were already people living there, but there were people living in Palestine!

I have also wondered why, as so many Romanies were also tortured and murdered by the Nazi regime, no-one gave them their own country. Perhaps we should just be grateful that no-one did, or it would be another source of strife, but it is a fair question! (End of self-quote)

And where someone said in bedawyn's journal What bothers me about the Palestinians is that I can't figure out exactly what they want other than for every Israeli citizen to pack up and leave. I again found myself drawn to reply passionately on behalf of the Palestinians - I apologise that some of this overlaps with what I wrote above, but it is again simply a cut and paste from bedawyn's journal -

(Quote)
And some of the things the Palestinians want are
(1)the compensation that they were promised by the USA, the newly formed Israeli government and the UK when they were forced out of their homes sixty years ago, of which they have seen nothing.

(2) the land that they were pushed into when Israel was formed, in neighbouring countries who had no say about taking the Palestinian refugees, and which they were then forced out of again when Israel refused to return to the nationally agreed borders.

(3) the land they have been farming before the Israelis built a wall between their houses and their farms.

(4) compensation for the houses that have been demolished time and time again by Israeli bulldozers.

(5) reparation for the lives of the people who were often inside those houses at the time.

(6) reparation for the sort of things like the taxi driver interviewed a couple of days ago who pointed out three quarters of a house, where a couple of days before he had had a whole house, and the heap of twisted metal which had been his (American built) taxi, which had been flattened by an Israeli tank - so that he now has no way of making a living to enable him to mend his house.

(7) The Israelis to stay out of the land that they say they have 'given' to the Palestinians. Even if it is like I take your bag of sweets off you, now I generously give you a sweet out of the bag - now I snatch it back from you and jump up and down on it.

Many of them would of course like their original land back - after all if someone took your house off you at gun-point, then you were never given a penny piece for it, even years after you might still feel that it was yours. But they mostly accept that through no fault of their own they have had to pay the price for the fact that the Jewish people suffered in Europe - they just want to not have to keep on and on paying the bill for something that was nothing to do with them in the first place.

They want to be able to live on the scraps of land they have been forced into without finding someone has built a wall in their garden, or bulldozed their grandmother. Most of them would just like to have the sort of things that you and I take for granted.
(End quote)

And the current situation in Lebanon is tragic. Lebanon was just beginning to get itself back together as a country after years of civil war. There were still Hezbollah 'freedom fighters' (or terrorists, or 'the Resistance' depending on how you look at things) in the borderlands where Lebanon, Syria and Israel meet, but they were mainly in the area that had previously been occupied by Israel for many years, and as far as one can tell from interviews on TV most of the population were just glad that there was no more fighting.

Totally unacceptably, to me, Hezzbollah seem to have gone into territory internationally accepted as Israel to attack and the kidnap two Israeli soldiers. Now they probably should have known it would provoke Israel into totally disproportionate retaliation, having seen the destruction in Gaza recently, and to me the initial blame for the situation is definitely at the door of Hezbollah.

But the way in which the entire state of Lebanon has been attacked is unforgivable. I heard a rabbi on the radio last week explaining that 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth' is not actually an exhortation to wreak revenge, but is meant to limit the extent of revenge - in effect you should only take an eye for an eye - not two eyes, two arms and a leg.

So yes, Hezzbollah are firing rockets into Israel - but the revenge wreaked by the Israelis is totally out of all proportion. That this is so must be obvious to anyone - after all the governments of Italy, France, the USA and (slowly!) the UK etc. are only evacuating their nationals from the Lebanon - they aren't evacuating them from Israel.

The impression I am getting is that an organised and prosperous Lebanon is not acceptable to the Israeli government - they see it as a threat, and took any opportunity that they could to bomb it back into the state it was in during their previous occupation and Lebanense civil war. Now this may not be true - but this is the impression they give.

President G Bush has the same knee jerk reaction as every US president before him 'Israel is always right' - and so it seems as if no matter what the Israeli government do to any of their neighbours they get no flack for it, because the US government will always veto anything that in any way criticises Israel.

Most people I have met from Europe in general believe that this is to do with the number of Jewish people living in the USA, but I cannot believe that all, or even most, of those people believe that Israel can treat anyone however they like, without any consequences. Therefore I really do wonder why the US government behave in this way. Whatever the reason, simply blaming Syria is not a logical reaction, and the US government must have some of the blood of the Gaza Palestinians and the Lebanese civilians that the Israeli armed forces have bulldozed, shot, shelled etc. on their hands.


So that is how I feel - month after month I read in newspapers, magazines etc. of the suffering of the Palestinian people - the women, children, elderly people - who had no say in their current situation at all. I despair at the way they have to live, never knowing from one day to the next whether they will have a house to come home to, or whether they will find it bulldozed because someone decided it was 'too close to our land' or simply in the way when we decide to drive down your street in a tank because a teenager threw stones at one of us. I hear psychologists tell us over and over again that abused children become abusers - which may well account for the way the Israeli government work, but bodes very badly for the way that the Palestinian children will behave when they grow up, as they learn that shooting people, bulldozing their houses, confiscating their land etc. is the right way to behave, because no-one even admonishes the people who do these things to them.

Now I wait for you all to shout at me, and defriend me.

Comments

[spikeverse.livejournal.com]

I agree that Israel has long mishandled things with their neighbors. All the bombing of towns and homes in Palestine in retaliation for a suicide bomber or other attack is wrong. And destroying Lebanon like this is just not smart. It is only going to make the situation worse.

However, they didn't just decide to put a Jewish state there and then import Jews. Jews have always been there. Many more started arriving in the prior century. In addition, Israel is full of Arabs who chose to stay and live there. And their population grows faster than the Jews.

I'm more bothered by my belief that Israel is doomed. My parents traveled around there in 1989. I should have gone with them then. I don't think there will ever be a time to go there again in my lifetime.

[curiouswombat.livejournal.com]

Of course there is no point in trying to change what was done sixty years ago, but just because there were Jews living there did not mean that they should have automatically been given the whole area to do with as they wanted.

Just because there are Italians in Inverness doesn't mean that they should be given control of it as an independant country, nor the Irish in Liverpool, or the Manx in Canada.

And of course there are Arabs living in Israel, but they are not the major force in the Israeli government, making the decisions about attacking their neighbours for no good reason. And I mean no good reason - I cannot accept that the staff of Beirut airport, or the occupants of the block of flats destroyed in a mainly Christian suburb that was shown briefly on the news five minutes ago, or the fifteen people in the convoy leaving the area that the Israelis gave 48 hours notice to leave their homes or be considered viable targets that were killed anyway etc etc etc were in any way responsible for the death of the three or four Israeli soldiers, or the kidnapping of two more.

The response of the Israeli government is horrific, barbarous and were these attacks being carried out by any other country there would be immediate response from the international community such as there was when the Serbians attacked Kosovo.

And as my husband just pointed out before he went to bed, building a Jewish homeland, to ensure their safety, in the part of the world most likely to object to it, was not clever - even if it was what they wanted. And he also pointed out that the best way to safeguard the existence of the Jewish people was not to gather them all together in one place, where one decent sized nuclear weapon could wipe them all out - dispersion was probably safer!

[spikeverse.livejournal.com]

I've been debating all day whether or not to reply again, but this really bothers me, especially since I am surrounded all day by people who hold the opposite extreme opinion, practically cheering Israel on.

I guess I wasn't clear enough when saying I didn't agree with Israel's actions, current and past. I think bombing is quite evil and would declare it a war crime if it were up to me. And in addition to the wrongness of the current actions, it's just not smart.

However my point was that everyone was over simplifying the history and the whole situation. They didn't just decide out of the blue to create Israel there. And the Israelis didn't just round up Palestinians and kick them out. And it didn't start 60 years ago or with Nazis.

The Palestinian refugees are refugees of the later wars. And the walls and the checkpoints and other security measures are things that evolved out of decades of war and terrorism, fear and suspicion. As is any second class citizen status that Arab citizens endure.

In addition to the Jews that have always been there, large migrations began in the 1880s as they fled ghettos and pograms and many, many other instances of persecution that occurred all over Europe and throughout history.

The settlers (before all these mandates) mostly bought the land for their settlements. They didn't take it away from the people living there. Much was uninhabited and unusable until the settlers made it usable. They began building a home for decades without anyone hardly noticing or caring. They were allowed to do this under the only government that existed at the time which was the Ottoman Turks and the British. The Arabs living there didn't even own the land. They were serfs. It really is not the same thing as creating them a homeland in the middle of the U.S. or Lincolnshire, both parts of soveriegn states.

All of the countries in the area were artificially created, not just Israel. Some were divvied up somewhat acording to history and ethnicity. Like Israel. And many have disputed borders. The difference is 1) All the neighbors immediately declared war on Israel and 2) there were millions of refugees who needed homes.

Many tried to flee to other countries, but most started denying visas early in the war, the U.S. included, leaving desperate people no choices.

Also, the boundaries were drawn and then changed and land traded away many, many times by the U.N. and the British. Causing more disputes.

And all this I've just written is still way over simplified. I tried to find good simple description of events. Apparently it can't be done.

After all they've been through, they are quite determined to never let anything like the holocaust, pograms, ghettos and inquisitions ever happen to them again. And after the way almost everyone turned their backs on them in WWII, it's no wonder they believe they have to do it for themselves. I don't think it's that hard to understand why they are so determined to keep their country.

I do wish Israel could have managed to make some allies of some neighbors instead of maintaining them all as enemies by doing things like they are doing now to Lebanon and all 'retaliations' over the years for acts of terrorism. I think they've been doing everything wrong probably since the 50s (a period I just pulled out of thin air). Before the correct time period if it's possible to pinpoint, there was a period where I don't think the Israelis had much choice.

It is now a huge mess which I don't think can or will be resolved. The Rapture is more likely to occur first.

So I don't understand why more recent migrants, such as Soviets who managed to escape in the 80s and after the fall of Communism and anyone coming along later, would want to settle there. I'd choose New York.

the best way to safeguard the existence of the Jewish people was not to gather them all together in one place, where one decent sized nuclear weapon could wipe them all out - dispersion was probably safer!

They were dispersed. It wasn't safer.

[curiouswombat.livejournal.com]

I am surrounded all day by people who hold the opposite extreme opinion, practically cheering Israel on.

Now that really bothers me. How any people living in a civilised country can find the indiscriminate destruction of people's homes, families and livelihoods, whether it is in Gaza or Lebanon, an acceptable way for anyone who is not officially 'a terrorist'to behave is very, very worrying. If anyone else bombed holiday resorts they would be vilified.

Of course the history goes back a long way - most countries have histories going back thousands of years - most of us have learnt to live with the fact that our ancestors may have been mistreated by your ancestors - we deal. And that comment applies equally to the Arabs, the Israelis and the Lebanese (who as much European as Arab,of course).

The problem is the way the relevant countries behave now. And the most belligerent and most likely to attack with excessive force is Israel. The current official figures for example for the last week are Israelis dead: 30, people in Lebanon dead 300: where they can be reached to be counted.

And dispersion was a lot safer - only the Jews in German occupied Europe were murdered - those in other areas of the world weren't, otherwise they wouldn't have been around to form the state of Israel.

[spikeverse.livejournal.com]

I agree, the issue is the way the relevant countries behave now. It's just the comments were getting away from that.

And the Jews in German occupied Europe were not the only ones murdered. And the 30s and 40s were not the only periods where they were being murdered. That's just the most heinous and recent example. Their entire history is of them being persecuted, forced into Ghettos, being second class citizens and murdered everywhere they've been. Look up Russion Pograms.

[curiouswombat.livejournal.com]

That's just the most heinous and recent example.
Well yes of course the Jewish people have been persecuted for centuries - and I in no way condone that - the history of such atrocities as the pogroms are part of our high school history syllabus. I took the example of the holocaust because it is the most recent.
Their entire history is of them being persecuted, forced into Ghettos, being second class citizens and murdered everywhere they've been.
Which in itself again confirms what S2C said in passing - because sadly, like some other ethnic groups such as the Roma, the Jews seem to be a target over and over again, if they had not been spread out all over the world, but just in one place - using the example of the pogroms then, rather than the holocaust - then the entire race might have been destroyed, not just part of it.

What I find so distressing is that being the political leaders of a people that has suffered so much themselves, the Israeli government inflict such pain and suffering on other people.

I also do wonder, quite seriously, why the Roma were not given a homeland as reparation for losing a similar proportion of their total number worldwide in the holocaust. Nobody ever seems to have thought of it, or maybe they didn't want one, I don't know. My daughter, who has studied the history of Europe in the first half of the twentieth century in some depth, doesn't know the answer to that either.