Palestine Today

[Coyote]

There is a big difference. Immigrants move to a country to join the existing population and become a part of that society.

Settlers move to a country to live separate (in colonies) from the existing population with the plan to remove them and take over for themselves.

There is a complete difference in the purpose.

This is actually really good. I agree, in theory, with your concepts.

Immigrants give up their (individual) rights to self determination, in favor of their assimilation with their new culture.

Colonizers impose their (collective) self determination on the existing population.

Returnees re-establish their (collective) self determination.


Your hypocrisy is in not recognizing Jewish indigeneity, Arab colonization and Jewish reclamation.

But likewise - you are not recognizing Palestinian "indigenous". They are a native people, not colonizers. If Jews immigrating from around the world to Israel (as is their right granted by the state) are "returnees" despite never living there, then so are Palestinians pressing for their "right of return" despite several generations that have never set foot there.

You can't insist that native populations that have existed there as long as "indigenous" ones are "colonizers" when they have been there thousands of years. The Israelites themselves were invaders on an earlier culture, the Canaanites (that no longer exists as a culture) but many people who are there now descended from them as well as from other peoples who hav invaded or immigrated through the ages. (and no this is not about the claim made by Palestinians that they are descended from the Canaanites, but about historical evidence in the region).

There is only one reason to do this and its the same ugly reason Tinmore uses to disenfranchise the Jewish rights there.

Well, there are historical and factual errors in the above, as well as your confusion between individual and collective rights, but there is no point in beating that dead horse.

You are absolutely in the wrong for suggesting my position is the same as Tinmore's, and since you do seem to read my posts, you must be doing it deliberately.

I have always argued for self determination for BOTH peoples. I have always argued for return of BOTH peoples. I have always argued for a State for BOTH peoples.

Painting my position as "ugly" and used to "disenfranchise" people is a vile lie against the position I have held here since my first post.

Shusha, I agree. You have always argued for self determination for both sides. But your insistence on referring to one side as "colonizers" echo's Tinmore's claims.

So why do you do that? What is the purpose when we both know that term is a slur in these conversations, as a vehicle for de-legitimizing. I think you've pointed out to me that words matter.

When you repeatedly portray a group as "colonizers" (or invaders) - the implication is that they are recent arrivals, with out real rights to be there, when the reality is - their history in that place is so long, that their culture is integral to the region.

What is the PURPOSE in labeling one group "invaders" and "colonists" when factually, historically, their present there is well beyond a thousand years.

 

[Coyote]

What it is doing, but not demolishing homes. Until they come up with a political solution, that is the best solution.

What is Israel doing? Do you think it is enough to protect Israel's citizens and deter further terrorism?

I don't know exactly what they are doing, but attacks have decreased according to this: https://mfa.gov.il/MFA/ForeignPolicy/Terrorism/Palestinian/Pages/Wave-of-terror-October-2015.aspx

So I assume what they are doing is working.

Do I think it's enough? I think it's a balancing act between maintaining freedom and protecting citizens. If they come down too harshly in a way that disproportionately hurts law abiding Arab Israeli's - they will alienate that portion of their citizenry.

When we look at crime in the US - it's similar in that we will never eradicate violent crime, not without becoming a country we don't want to be - but if we keep it to a low enough level, and people FEEL safe, they would rather keep their freedoms and accept that - just an opinion. A lot of it is how safe do people feel. When Israel attacks positions where rockets have shot from - it reduces the number of rockets...maybe acts as a deterrent for a while, and people feel safer.

I disagree though with something else you said, that the “victims” wrong doing is not the source of the hate. It is, in part, very much so. You can not unmix it.

We are probably going to have to agree to disagree on this one.[/QUOTE]

Agree.

 

[Shusha]

But your insistence on referring to one side as "colonizers" echo's Tinmore's claims. So why do you do that? What is the purpose when we both know that term is a slur in these conversations, as a vehicle for de-legitimizing. I think you've pointed out to me that words matter.

I don't think it delegitimizes Arab Palestinians rights to self-determination and sovereignty one bit to acknowledge the factual reality that Arab culture was imported into the area through acts of deliberate colonization. Arguing that the collective Arab culture is an original culture while Jewish culture is an invading culture is an 180 degree inversion of reality. For me, it is no different than acknowledging the importation of European culture into the Americas through colonization. Its just a factual point of history.

You'll notice that I only bring up Arab colonization in very specific circumstances. That is, to counter Tinmore's rejection of Jewish indigeneity and, consequently, rights to self-determination.

The difference between Tinmore and me, is that Tinmore uses the idea of colonization to delegitimize one of the two groups. I do not.

Again, in your rush to paint both sides as being absolutely morally equivalent, you accuse me of being no better than Tinmore. But in order to do that, you have to deliberately misrepresent my position.

 

[Coyote]

But your insistence on referring to one side as "colonizers" echo's Tinmore's claims. So why do you do that? What is the purpose when we both know that term is a slur in these conversations, as a vehicle for de-legitimizing. I think you've pointed out to me that words matter.

I don't think it delegitimizes Arab Palestinians rights to self-determination and sovereignty one bit to acknowledge the factual reality that Arab culture was imported into the area through acts of deliberate colonization. Arguing that the collective Arab culture is an original culture while Jewish culture is an invading culture is an 180 degree inversion of reality. For me, it is no different than acknowledging the importation of European culture into the Americas through colonization. Its just a factual point of history.

I absolutely disagree, it does delegitimize them. It's implying that they are not native peoples and they are. They are no more "colonists" than are the Jews who immigrated over from Europe. It may not be the "original" culture (which, is actually lost in the mists of antiquity) - the only remaining original cultures would be the Jews and the Beduouin - but other NATIVE peoples, not an indigenous culture, but native to the region as invaders and colonists is to portray them in a negative light and as having less right to place. You don't intend that, and I don't think you do - but that is what it de facto does.

You'll notice that I only bring up Arab colonization in very specific circumstances. That is, to counter Tinmore's rejection of Jewish indigeneity and, consequently, rights to self-determination.

True, but let me gently point out - I have been lambasted for the same sort of thing, using particular arguments to counter arguments that reject Palestinian rights as a native people in that region. It's made me very conscious of words.

The difference between Tinmore and me, is that Tinmore uses the idea of colonization to delegitimize one of the two groups. I do not.

I don't think you intend to, but it does do that. I do think Tinmore intends to, because he has repeatedly in many different ways indicated that Jews do not have the same rights as Palestinians.

Again, in your rush to paint both sides as being absolutely morally equivalent, you accuse me of being no better than Tinmore. But in order to do that, you have to deliberately misrepresent my position.

I'm not trying to "paint both sides as being absolutely morally equivalent" - I think you are much much better than Tinmore and your arguments are fair and consistent. But words MATTER and choosing to use certain terms matters. It's been repeatedly pointed out to me that even if the intent isn't there - using certain terms, words and arguments end up implying something that totally wasn't intended. When Tinmore uses "colonists" and "invaders" he has something definite in mind. But the terms themselves in the context of this forum are loaded with meaning. The you apply them to the Palestinian/Israeli Arab population - it does the same thing even if not intended.

 

[P F Tinmore]

The idea that Israel is not perfect, right, or good is a distraction from the real issue. The real issue is the settler colonial project.

Settler colonialism is when the natives are removed and they are replaced by foreign settlers. It is an aggressive act. This was started before 1948 and continues to today.

That isn’t exactly what happened. Accurate historical numbers are problematic in that region, but by and large it was found that Jewish immigration did not displace native Arab populations. The Jews tended to settle in different areas. With war, things changed, both Jews and Arabs were forced out of various areas, some through violence, some through well founded fear.

The problem with the often repeated meme of Jews as colonists is what does that make the foriegn Arabs who came to region from other countries, looking for jobs, and stayed? Are they colonists too?

Whose war?

There is a big difference between immigrants and settlers.

Not really.

There is a big difference. Immigrants move to a country to join the existing population and become a part of that society.

Settlers move to a country to live separate (in colonies) from the existing population with the plan to remove them and take over for themselves.

There is a complete difference in the purpose.

The Zionist Project - 1948

If so...then how do you account for the fact that they immigrated to Israel and JOINED the existing Jewish population there? How is that "living separate" from the existing population?

the fact that they immigrated to Israel and JOINED the existing Jewish population there?

They didn't. The native Jews did not want a Jewish state either. They saw it as creating generations of war. And, of course, they were correct.

 

[Coyote]

That isn’t exactly what happened. Accurate historical numbers are problematic in that region, but by and large it was found that Jewish immigration did not displace native Arab populations. The Jews tended to settle in different areas. With war, things changed, both Jews and Arabs were forced out of various areas, some through violence, some through well founded fear.

The problem with the often repeated meme of Jews as colonists is what does that make the foriegn Arabs who came to region from other countries, looking for jobs, and stayed? Are they colonists too?

Whose war?

There is a big difference between immigrants and settlers.

Not really.

There is a big difference. Immigrants move to a country to join the existing population and become a part of that society.

Settlers move to a country to live separate (in colonies) from the existing population with the plan to remove them and take over for themselves.

There is a complete difference in the purpose.

The Zionist Project - 1948

If so...then how do you account for the fact that they immigrated to Israel and JOINED the existing Jewish population there? How is that "living separate" from the existing population?

the fact that they immigrated to Israel and JOINED the existing Jewish population there?

They didn't. The native Jews did not want a Jewish state either. They saw it as creating generations of war. And, of course, they were correct.

They DID join the native Jewish population though. And feelings about a Jewish state were mixed among all Jews - just like feelings about national self determination were mixed in Catalonia recently. It doesn't change the fact that they joined with the existing culture there.

 

[P F Tinmore]

It depends on the territorial meaning of the ambiguous term: "Palestine." When you say "Palestine" in this critique, what are you talking about?

Inside their international borders.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Whose war?

There is a big difference between immigrants and settlers.

Not really.

There is a big difference. Immigrants move to a country to join the existing population and become a part of that society.

Settlers move to a country to live separate (in colonies) from the existing population with the plan to remove them and take over for themselves.

There is a complete difference in the purpose.

The Zionist Project - 1948

If so...then how do you account for the fact that they immigrated to Israel and JOINED the existing Jewish population there? How is that "living separate" from the existing population?

the fact that they immigrated to Israel and JOINED the existing Jewish population there?

They didn't. The native Jews did not want a Jewish state either. They saw it as creating generations of war. And, of course, they were correct.

They DID join the native Jewish population though. And feelings about a Jewish state were mixed among all Jews - just like feelings about national self determination were mixed in Catalonia recently. It doesn't change the fact that they joined with the existing culture there.

This is not new. It has been like that since before there was an Israel.

 

[admonit]

Considering that the denial of the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people to self determination, sovereignty, independence and return to Palestine...

No one makes the claim that Arab Palestinians do not have the rights of the Palestinian people to self-determination, sovereignty, independence and return to Palestine...

Wrong.

IF and ONLY IF → the Arab Palestinians recognizing these same rights in the Israeli people

The Jewish people. The rights of the Jewish people.

 

[Ropey]

 

[Ropey]

I don't think that these guys quite understand what low yield wide dispersion tactical nukes are capable of and their kill ratios ...

America's just getting them together while Israel's had them for literally years. It's Israeli miniaturization tech as well. These guys will be the 'walking dead'.

Low-Yield Nuclear Weapons Won’t End the World

Stop it already.

 

[Shusha]

But your insistence on referring to one side as "colonizers" echo's Tinmore's claims. So why do you do that? What is the purpose when we both know that term is a slur in these conversations, as a vehicle for de-legitimizing. I think you've pointed out to me that words matter.

I don't think it delegitimizes Arab Palestinians rights to self-determination and sovereignty one bit to acknowledge the factual reality that Arab culture was imported into the area through acts of deliberate colonization. Arguing that the collective Arab culture is an original culture while Jewish culture is an invading culture is an 180 degree inversion of reality. For me, it is no different than acknowledging the importation of European culture into the Americas through colonization. Its just a factual point of history.

I absolutely disagree, it does delegitimize them. It's implying that they are not native peoples and they are. They are no more "colonists" than are the Jews who immigrated over from Europe. It may not be the "original" culture (which, is actually lost in the mists of antiquity) - the only remaining original cultures would be the Jews and the Beduouin - but other NATIVE peoples, not an indigenous culture, but native to the region as invaders and colonists is to portray them in a negative light and as having less right to place. You don't intend that, and I don't think you do - but that is what it de facto does.

You'll notice that I only bring up Arab colonization in very specific circumstances. That is, to counter Tinmore's rejection of Jewish indigeneity and, consequently, rights to self-determination.

True, but let me gently point out - I have been lambasted for the same sort of thing, using particular arguments to counter arguments that reject Palestinian rights as a native people in that region. It's made me very conscious of words.

The difference between Tinmore and me, is that Tinmore uses the idea of colonization to delegitimize one of the two groups. I do not.

I don't think you intend to, but it does do that. I do think Tinmore intends to, because he has repeatedly in many different ways indicated that Jews do not have the same rights as Palestinians.

Again, in your rush to paint both sides as being absolutely morally equivalent, you accuse me of being no better than Tinmore. But in order to do that, you have to deliberately misrepresent my position.

I'm not trying to "paint both sides as being absolutely morally equivalent" - I think you are much much better than Tinmore and your arguments are fair and consistent. But words MATTER and choosing to use certain terms matters. It's been repeatedly pointed out to me that even if the intent isn't there - using certain terms, words and arguments end up implying something that totally wasn't intended. When Tinmore uses "colonists" and "invaders" he has something definite in mind. But the terms themselves in the context of this forum are loaded with meaning. The you apply them to the Palestinian/Israeli Arab population - it does the same thing even if not intended.

You are coloring the issue with unintended meaning when there is no need to do so, especially given that you know my position with respect to Arab Palestinian self determination. Arab colonization and the intentional spread of Arabic culture is simply an historical fact. Just as European colonization of the Americas is an historical fact. It doesn't do the discussion any favors to pretend that these facts don't exist and don't have an impact, either historically, or today when Palestine lays claim to being a part of the Arab world, the Arab nation and Arab unity. We (you and I), unlike Tinmore, can and SHOULD discuss these realities without layering on the additional propaganda that Tinmore does in his rush to delegitimatize Israel.

You and I can and should be able to discuss Jewish migration, Arab colonization, knowing that the context is self determination and sovereignty for both peoples. That is what is going to elevate this conversation. Instead of permitting the Tinmores to create extended meanings for words in order to demonize, let's understand and accurately acknowledge historical facts.

 

[P F Tinmore]

A primary school student was injured by Israeli occupation forces fire while raiding Al Issawiya village in the occupied Jerusalem.

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

 

[P F Tinmore]

Video shows the destruction in a UNRWA school caused by the Israeli air strike that targeted the house of the Islamic Jihad leader Baha' Abu Ata, killing him and his wife, and injuring his four children.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Israeli occupation warplanes targeted an apartment in a multi-storey residential building, west of Gaza.

 

[Shusha]

Israeli occupation warplanes targeted an apartment in a multi-storey residential building, west of Gaza.

Awfully precise.