Community archive

Ask something
Discussion Locked

Gaza, the withdrawal: Right or wrong?

0 helpful
40 replies

by levannah44 1 view

Closed to new repliesThis discussion is closed. It stays readable, but it takes no new replies.

As the Israeli withdrawal from Gaza approaches, and the demonstrations increase, we have to stop and wonder what this is really all about.

Before continuing, I will say right at the outset that I am a Jew and proud of it. But I am an Aussie first and a Jew second, not an Israeli.

Okay, we all know that the Jews 'claim' Israel as 'theirs' because God promised it to them in the Bible.

While the Bible has vastly widened its influence since Christianity took it over, then added to it, in its original form, this great book only pertained to a very small group of people. It wasn't recognised by everyone.

Nor was the 'God' in it either. So for outsiders, neither the promise that was supposedly made to the Jews, nor the land the promise was made about, mean anything to anyone outside its influence.

Wait a moment. I forgot the Palestinians. They claim the land belongs to them as well, and they've been there far longer than the Jews.

Let's take another look. Rome, which occupied 1st century Palestine [Judaea], finally flattened Jerusalem in the year 70 CE. The Jews, who had lived there for at least a thousand years, were scattered to all parts of both the known, and unknown, corners of the world. It was the beginning of the Diaspora. Maybe without the Romans, the Jews would have remained in Palestine throughout and would have a more solid claim to the land without having to fall back on 'God' or the 'Bible'.

What about the Palestinians then? What was their claim? Until 1918, Palestine was part of the Ottoman Empire, which had ruled since the thirteenth century.

After that, the UK, France and the US arrived to carve up the old Ottoman regions for themselves, drawing lines on a map to create artificial countries.

It didn't matter to these three powerful countries if the lines they drew cut across old ethnic or geographic borders or not. All they wanted was control of the rich oilfields in the area.

After WWII, most of the foreign mandates ended, but the artificial borders remained. Jews began to pour into the country from Europe, escaping the horrors of the holocaust, of homelessness, of having nowhere else to go.

Between the wars, the Jews who had arrived to settle in Palestine [for the political reasons of Zionism, rather than escaping from a terrible conflict] lived, by and large, reasonably peaceful existences with their Arab neighbours.

And then Israel was born. The British Mandate ended and, with the stroke of a pen, a new country came into existence.

All hell broke loose. While the growing number of Jewish settlers arriving in the land during the Mandate had been relatively peaceful and accommodated by the Arabs, once the new Israel was proclaimed, it was war.

The war has never really ceased, but the highlights came in 1967 when Israel occupied the West Bank, the Gaza Strip, 'old' Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.

And they would continue to occupy them 'forever', even if only for security reasons. The die was well and truly cast for a showdown.

Some Jews, quoting the Bible, moved into the occupied territories and settled there. The West Bank, by rights, belonged to the Palestinians, whatever 'God' had 'promised' in the Bible three thousand years ago.

Gaza, however, was a different matter. It had never been part of Israel, having always belonged to Egypt, so was, by rights, already Arab land.

The Jews who had settled there never saw it like that, of course. Whether moving there was for political or religions reasons was beside the point -- Gaza did not belong to Israel other than by occupation.

But if Gaza had never even been part of the so-called promise God had made to the Jews, where does that leave it now?

In my eyes, it leaves it as Arab territory, part of Egypt, which it has been for many thousands of years.

So, what about the withdrawal? Because Gaza is not and never was, part of Israel, the settlers should leave. This is Arab -- or at least, Egyptian -- territory and has nothing to do with the 'Holy Land' or with Israel.

Yes, some Palestinians will be hurt by the withdrawal, those who work for the settlers in the greenhouses, or those who travel every day to Israel, across the border, to work.

Yes, there is a wage difference in what they earn from the settlers and what they could earn from Palestinian masters. For that matter, once the settlers leave, they may not even be able to get jobs again.

But that aside, who benefits in the long term? With any luck, the Palestinians [Arabs, Egyptians]. Hopefully, they will pick up the pieces and turn Gaza into what they want it to be. Not overnight, of course, but over time.

The withdrawal will be a GOOD THING, the right thing to do, and Gaza, at least, will at last become what it was always meant to be -- part of the new country of Palestine.

What do others think?

40 replies

by jdclyde

If this land is given over, do you think decades of war and hate will just stop and there will be peace in the land?

I fear this will not solve any issues other than restoring this part back to Palistine. Then they will move on to destroy the rest.

Look at the boarders of Israel on an Arabian map and Tell me what you see. That is what is the goal of the Arabian nations, that the land looks like their maps, with no Israel at all.

I don't see either side willing to let go of the hate.

by levannah44

I never said anything about peace. That's an entirely separate issue. And I'm well aware of where all the Arab countries want Israel too -- out of existence.

But that isn't the problem I was asking about. My question was only about Gaza. Let's deal with that first before moving on to the [probably more] contentious issue of a peace agreement.

by dnvrtechgrrl

A peace agreement would most certainly have to fall in line with a pull out. The reason anyone has even discussed Isreal leaving the Gaza strip is in part DUE to the unrest bred by hate. A peaceful agreement doesn't suggest the hate go elsewhere; just that the militant/deadly unrest will cease with an agreement that both parties can live with.

As for the original question: I don't think the parting of Isrealites will bring an end to the problems that are going on over there. As with most things in life though, I make my impressions of life based on my own experiences, and having grown up in the U.S. with the government I have - I've had PLENTY of clear examples of what works and what doesn't. (Thank you Bushwhack and Reganomics!)

Isreal's own government is at odds with itself right now. They can't possibly be helpful to themselves, let alone anyone else, if they can't even sit down at the table and agree on their next step. (I hate to see Ben step down. It seems until this last couple of weeks he's really had a good head on his shoulders.)

Then you add several, several years of infighting between the two groups, and a Palestinian government that is rebuilding...

It's further breeding ground for more unrest. Even if they don't take it out on each other - that level of hate is still there. When a person reaches a point where they can't think about anything else but retaliation for the hardships they've been caused it's easy to see how their first reaction might be that of violence.

The one thing I think we can all agree on:
It's going to be an interesting ride.

by absolutely

Whether they decrease in number, perceptibly, over any time period you choose to name, I am unwilling to guess. But in general I suspect that the dirt-poor schmucks detonating themselves are doing so for a cause they view as noble. The most practical course of action for Israel appears to me to be to return land that was taken by military force, even as part of defensive military action, and just defend what was given to them after WW2.

by levannah44

So you'd think, Absolutely. But I can guarantee you it will never happen so long as someone's waving this Biblical 'promised land' thing in the Arabs' [Palestinians'] faces.

And anyway, to back down now would only be egg in the face for the Israelis. Then again, what about the US and the oil thing? Even if Sharon suddenly decided to do as you suggest (which he won't!) can you see the US sitting back meekly and watching half 'their' middle east oil reserves being snatched away from them at the stroke of a pen?

Nice thought, but it'll never happen, I'm afraid.

by montgomery gator

But the withdrawal will make it a little easier for Israel to defend its borders, without having to stretch its security to guard its settlements in Gaza that were enclaves surrounded by Palestinians. From a tactical standpoint, it makes sense for that reason. However, I do not see the radical segments of the Palestinans being satisfied with just the withdrawal from Gaza.

by levannah44

Well, Gaza was a start, and I believe there were also a couple of communities on the WB involved in the same pull-out.

I'm not sure if much more will happen now until after the next elections, and with Netanyahu now going up AGAINST Sharon, it should prove to be very interesting indeed.

If Sharon wins, there'll be more withdrawals, I think. Slow, but they'll happen. If Netanyahu wins, it'll all be back to square one. I wouldn't put it past him to even try and re-establish the dismantled communities; he's quite brash enough to try.

As for peace, no, it won't really help there, but at least Sharon's got his priorities in the right place now. He'll just draw it out for as long as he can, I guess.

G

by levannah44

Undoubtedly you're spot on with that final line, and I couldn't agree more myself.

But the really contentious part won't come until they start talking about Jerusalem. That's when sparks are going to fly!

by raven2

You have three major religions claiming rights there.

I know, we can have rotating control, yearly change over. No physical changes without the ok of all parties, this would mean a permenant office and conference center that house the bueacracy that would spring up from that idea. Maybe Halliburton could handle the staffing, supplies, and housing.

Or, how about we put Jerusalem under the control of the Dali Lama.

He seems to be the only one on the planet that does not have some sort of vested interest in that particular piece of real estate.

by levannah44

The only rational outcome would be to make Jerusalem an international city; that is, come under the jurisdiction of the UN. I honestly can't see any other way where there wouldn't be rivers of blood to go with it.

But I do like your Dalai Lama idea! He'd make a wonderful custodian of the place.

G

by jck

unfortunately....absolutely nothing different.

Things might clean up for a while...a bit...but, not permanently. Someone will throw a cocktail, plant a bomb, or fire a shot and start up the hostilities again.

I do commend the Israeli government for taking a move that is considered quite unpopular. I think the best way to stop attacks on 10,000 or so Israelis in Gaza who live amongest 1M+ Palestinians is to extract them from the area and move them somewhere else. They've taken a hard, first move...now, it's time to see if the Palestinians offer something back in good faith...or if they demand more.

Essentially, both sides of this have to want it to end. I see factions wanting it to end on both sides, but not the majority on either side.

Sadly, people often let their differences segregate them rather than letting their similarities unite them.

I hope the best for everyone involved. It's silly for people to fight over such differences.

by levannah44

The majority of Israelis -- and Palestinians for that matter -- want peace, but unfortunately for us (the world), we rarely get to hear about the 'silent majority'. You'll always get the hardliners and fundamentalists on both sides who are out to cause trouble, no matter what.

In this particular case, it's the Israelis who are (mostly) in the wrong this time. They only 'own' Gaza through conquest. It does not otherwise belong to them, and never has. It's been Egyptian (Arab) territory for thousands of years.

It has NOTHING to do with 'God's promise' of 'the land' to Abraham and his descendants, because it was never part of that promise.

So Israel -- and the settlers -- are simply there by deception; they have no claim on this particular part of the land whatsoever.

Of course the fighting is silly, especially over something like this. Just don't let Israel pull the wool over your eyes (or anyone else's) by saying Gaza 'belongs' to them. It doesn't.

by jck

The Muslims didn't occupy that area until the 6th or 7th century AD, I think (if I remember right).

I thought far before that, it was part of the kingdom under (again...if I remember correctly) the rule of the Jewish ruler King Solomon.

And, I thought it only became Egyptian in the 1200s or something...modern era stuff...

Oh well...anyways...in either case...it's wrong for them to hurt each other over dirt...

by dmambo

Right

I think that it will be the end of Sharon's political life (and perhaps, if history repeats, his earthly life), but it's a rare and admirable occurrance for a politician to do the right thing even though it will damage his career. History will reflect well on him even if he's a pariah in the short-term.

by john.a.wills

I think levannah44 has a lot of history wrong, but I am worried about something else. So far as I know, the settlements were on already occupied property, so the land has rightful owners it should be given back to. Alas, the PA says the land belongs to all Palestinians and plans to administer it as housing tracts.

by levannah44

Okay John, I'll let you point out whatever mistakes I've made in my very potted history of the Gaza region and I will stand corrected.

But please don't tell me that the Bible (OT, that is), which is really only pertinent to the Jews, who wrote it -- and perhaps Christianity, who took it over -- gives the Jews the 'right' to the land just because someone called 'God' promised it to them four thousand years ago!

If that's the only evidence that gives Israel this right, then it's pretty shaky evidence. The Jews were scattered to the four corners of the globe following their defeat by Rome in 70CE, and again later in about 135CE during the Bar Kockba rebellion, which cleaned out the remnants.
This was beginning of the Diaspora.

Yes, small pockets of Jews managed to survive in Palestine throughout the following two thousand years, notably in and around Safad, until the state of Israel became a reality, but this did not make it a Jewish country.

The majority of the population fled Palestine after 70 and 135, many died, others were sold into slavery, but most escaped to other countries where their descendants lived and prospered, or they were kicked out again and again, but none returned to the 'new' Palestine until early last century following Herzl's impassioned support for Zionism (a political movement, not a religious one, and one that I have absolutely no time for) made many begin to return to the land of their ancestors.

At that time, it was still part of the Ottoman Empire, and later, between the wars, part of the British Mandate. It did not become 'Jewish' again until 1948 when the new state of Israel was signed into being by the (then new) United Nations.

However, that said, Gaza was NEVER part of this promise, either God's, the British or anyone else's. Gaza was always part of Egyptian territory, then and now. Israel may have gained the right to be there by conquest and then occupation, but in no way was Gaza ever part of 'old' Palestine in the Jewish sense or new Israel.

I may be Jewish, John, but I can understand the frustration of the PA, and Palestinians in general along with them, because even if they and their ancestors were physically occupying the land now known as Israel, they were not the 'owners' until quite recently, after the fall of the Ottoman Empire.

So in modern times, the Palestinians really only have a few decades' start over the Jews as to ownership of the land (of Israel), but the Jews have NO ownership rights to Gaza.

John, you may refute my arguments if you want, but I maintain that Gaza is not, and never was, Israeli territory, either in Biblical times or now.

I look forward to your answer.

by john.a.wills

1. I have never said that the "Jews" have rights over Eretz Israel.
2. I agree that Gaza was not part of the OT Israelite states.
3. Gaza was the southernmost city of the Philistine Pentapolis. One of the other cities was Ashqelon, another Gath, another, I think, Ekrem. I forget the fifth.
4. Herod the Great united what we nowadays call Palestine. He himself was of Jewish faith. Although he was from Edom he made Jerusalem his capital. Besides Edom and Judah his kingdom incuded Philistia, Samaria (whose inhabitants at that time were Samaritans, who would have nothing to do with Jews (Jn 4:9), though I suppose they did really), Galilee and some of the Trans-Jordan.
5. Having sovereignty is quite a different thing from national occupation of a territory. The right of the Palestinians to live in Palestine is independent of the sovereignty over the land; so are property rights. When the UN gave the Zionists part of Mandated Palestine it was quite clear about this.
6. Under the Ottoman Empire the Palestinians considered themselves a natural unit, as shown by the protests against British archaeological work (supposed to be looting of treasures) in 1911: Christians and Muslims throughout Palestine complained, and so did their representatives in the Ottoman parliament.
7. The Palestinians are referred to as a nation (Greek: ethnos) in the Gospel of John (11:47-52). They were the first majority-Jewish nation and, from about 200 CE, the first majority-Christian nation.
8. I suspect that the withdrawal from the Gaza Strip is strategic.
9. The PA should be giving the lands the settlers abandon or are forced from back to those from whom the IDF stole it for the settlers.
10. In the Ottoman Empire Gaza was usually ruled from Jerusalem.
11. Gaza was part of Mandated Palestine.

12. This kind of discussion is not really suited to this size of window.

by sleepin'dawg

In late 1960 I was assigned to the United Nations Peace Keeping Forces based at Rafah on the Gaza Strip. I spent a year and a half there. It's curious to note that at no time did the native Egyptians identify with the Palestinians, other than to consider them as troublesome interlopers. In fact Egyptians looked upon themselves as Egyptian first and only secondarily as Arabs. In the time I spent there, I visited Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Iraq, Morocco, Lybia and Lebannon. At no time did I ever hear these peoples refer to themselve as Arabs in a collective sense. With the exception of Saudi Arabia, they were to a man (or woman) Jordanians, Syrians, Algerians, Iraqis, Moroccans, Lybians or Lebanese. Saudi Arabians might call themselves Arab, with the claim they were/are the only true Arabs. Even in the Emirates and the Trucal States, people seldom called themselves Arab first. These people did not look upon themselves in terms of their ethnicity but in terms of their nationalities and their view of Palestinians was less than complimentary. Palestinians are viewed as people too stupid and weak to preserve their independance and only should be recognized and perhaps pitied, under the guise of Islamic brotherhood; otherwise they are held in contempt or somewhat in the manner we might regard a none to bright or retarded relative. Look at what has happened to Palestinians in places they have tried to set up communities. For openers they were chased out of Jordan and latterly Lebannon and most of the other states have laws denying them citizenship. It is interesting to note that the states bordering Israel have all commenced dialogues with the Israelis and are none to eager to upset the processes which are underway. The Palestinians of course blame this state of affairs on Israel and while they may receive financial and moral support at times from some of the other states, at the end of the day they find themselves isolated from the rest of the Arab nations. I have been in and out of the area many times since the sixties and what seemed true then, is even more true now. The Arab states have learned that there is more to be gained by peace with Israel than by war, a lesson, which unfortunately, the Palestinians have yet to learn. How this will affect the peace process is yet to be determined but in the end, it is to be hoped it will be achieved without further violence, although I seriously doubt it. My experiences with Palestinians leaves me somewhat prejudiced against them and feel the Israelis should deal with them as they see fit. Nothing will appease the Palestinians except the total destruction of Israel even if it encompasses the destruction of themselves. Sad, really, when you stop to think about it.

[b]Dawg[/b] ]:)

by john.a.wills

is that the Israelis can make peace at any time simply by letting the exiles home and restoring the private property the Israelis have stolen. Of course, the returned exiles would then vote for a united Palestine and the Israeli state would come to an end, but so would the war.

by levannah44

Would that it were as easy as that, John! I can see where Dawg's coming from too, but unfortunately, just letting the Palestinians back again, whether to claim land stolen by the Israelis or not, is simply not the straight-forward answer you believe it is. The eventual outcome would be exactly as you describe!

One of the biggest problems (I believe) is that Israel, or Palestine, even Philistia, whatever you care to call it, is bang in the middle of all the ancient trading routes. It's also the centre of so much of the oil-rich country surrounding it. Both these issues make it extremely strategic either way.

However, for almost as long as can be remembered, this tiny piece of the world has been dominated by other nations, harking as far back as Alexander the Great and the Greek Empire, even before that to Babylon and Egypt, Assyria and earlier.

Scant regard, therefore, has been given to what may be considered the real boundaries of, not just this one small country, but most of the other middle eastern countries as well -- carved up by outside powers for their own reasons, the ethnic boundaries have been largely ignored.

This alone has always presented problems, from as far away as the Kurds in the east, straddling Turkey and Iraq (and a small part of Iran) to the Israelis themselves, to say nothing of the enormous mix of ethnic 'Arabs' rubbing shoulders with those they consider 'outsiders', but are obliged to call 'neighbours' simply because a line drawn on a map by faraway powers say they should. This isn't an answer now; it was never an answer in the past.

Believe it not, it's from this that so much of the tension has arisen, both now and in earlier times. People forced to live together as a 'nation', when they are anything but, never makes for a settled society. The middle east is not a natural 'multicultural' mix.

Of course, plenty of other reasons have arisen since on top of these barely concealed tensions, to add to the unrest, none of which has helped the situation. So today, we see bloodshed on both sides, and it's getting worse rather than better at the moment, I think.

Until the world powers who all have fingers in the pie over there in the middle east butt out -- and I mean really butt out, as in leave, go home, get lost -- there'll be little improvement in my eyes.

I'm pretty sure all the middle eastern countries are quite capable of working out their own problems, including restoring proper ethnic boundaries to their countries, even Israel.

Okay, there'll certainly be a lot more bloodshed doing this, but not nearly as much as there would be if the other world powers were not there to incite it all the time.

Just another slant on some of the problems plaguing that strategic part of the world right now, and a personal opinion only. But I do believe everyone would be much better served if they were left to do it themselves; things would work out in the end.

by av .

The Palestinians and Israelis have got to stop the killing and seek peace. Peace may not come immediately, but this looks like a start.

I am surprised that Israel ever agreed to pull out from Gaza. Possibly, Ariel Sharon saw a window of opportunity for compromise after the death of Arafat. He did the right thing even though it is painful to watch the Israeli protesters pulled out of their homes of 30 some years.

Of course, the US is footing the bill for most of it with several billion dollars of support. Supposedly, the settlers in Gaza are being paid between $250,000 and $500,000 for their property. Thats enough to get a new house somewhere else for the sake of peace for them and the rest of the world. Enough already with the killings!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4151742.stm

One day, maybe, they both will seek common ground. Its a long way off though. I saw a picture today of some Palestinians celebrating on their boats with their face masks and guns.

by levannah44

Thank-you John for a most erudite reply. Yes, maybe you're correct when you say this kind of discussion isn't really suited 'to this size of window', but, having started it, I must admit my own parameters were much less than those you expound here; perhaps that's where the slight misunderstanding occurred, is such it was.

When I first posted this issue for discussion, I said at the time that my sweeping history of Palestine (Philistia) was both brief and very potted, possibly leaving out a lot that should have been included under the circumstances, but I'd have ended up writing a tome had I done that!

Although I spared a couple of sentences to very briefly outline the ancient history of Gaza -- on purpose, I have to add -- my main concern was for modern Gaza, because that's what all this horrible business is about.

Nevertheless, the situation, being what it is, especially now that we're in the middle of it, I personally abhor the tactics being used to take the settlers out. I don't agree with violence of any kind, but, since we're talking Israel and Palestine here, I daresay we can hardly avoid it.

I am a Jew and I am thoroughly ashamed and disgusted at the way this business is being conducted. To begin with, the settlers shouldn't have been there in the first place, necessitating this embarrassing 'drag-out' (not pull-out, as they'd have us believe) now.

I can understand the disappointment of SOME Arabs (Palestinians) to see the settlers leave, as they are the ones who were employed to work in the vegetable gardens of the Jews', but in time, if the PA does the right thing, these gardens can be taken over by Palestinian business men and women and their compatriots can once more be employed. That would be the simple answer.

John, as a Jew, I am not only disgusted at what I see as the contemptuous treatment of the Palestinians in Gaza, but also in the West Bank and in Israel proper. They are treated as second class citizens for the most part, and this will probably persist until a truly non-religious government predominates in the country. Unfortunately, I can't see it happening in a hurry.

As for that dreadful wall, while I can understand the Israelis' paranoia about security and terrorism, erecting a wall the way they have, arbitrarily cutting off Palestinian villages, slicing them in half, whatever, is just NOT ON. It is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!!

Pardon me for shouting, but frankly I think there's been quite enough bloodshed already, and while I know for a fact that the 'silent' majority of both Israelis and Palestinians are just hanging out for a cessation to all this, there are still the hardliners on either side who continue to give both sides a bad name -- Hamass on the one hand and groups such as the settlers on the other.

I wish I could just wave a magic wand and say 'Stop!' Wouldn't we all like to do that? There are ways to end this crisis, but until the extremists on both sides call a halt, no-one's really in any mood to listen yet.

Thanks for your input, John. It's greatly appreciated.

by john.a.wills

I can't be sure, but I think there were gardens before the settlers came. Surely the new gardens should be given to those who had the ones the IDF bulldozed? There is a question of property rights here, which is something more important than the relation between the two states - after all, the bad relations come mainly from the violation of property rights.

by levannah44

You're probably right, John. I must admit I only became aware of the vegetable gardens when a news item was broadcast about the 'many Palestinians' who would be put out of work once the Jews had left.

Yes, I say give 'em back, either to the old owners if they can be traced, or to new ones who'd be prepared to take them over. The only stipulation should be that these owners be Palestinians.

by john.a.wills

Apparently about 9% of the settlement territory is private property and the PA plans to return that to the owners. Now if property rights were respected throughout the Holy Land...

by jdclyde

this is not a perfect world.

You would NOT see a "peaceful restoring of ethnic boundaries", but rather a genocide of who ever is more powerful cleansing their boundries.

We would have Rwanda all over again, just on a grander scale. Would the outsides still need to "butt out" while this goes on?

If the Palestinians weren't fighting the Isralis, they would be fighting the other neighboring nations and the only peace will be that of the grave.

by john.a.wills

Now that Apartheid is over the Black South Africans are not driving the White South Africans out. I do not want to push the comparison far, because Zionism and Apartheid are two quite different kinds of racialism, but both have been experienced as oppression, disenfranchisement and dispossession, so there are parallels.

by levannah44

From what I hear, there are now many white South Africans living in terror for their lives, and the lives of their children. They've all but barracaded themselves into their homes. Some even have a 24/7 security guard on duty at their front gates.

While this may be one of the more negative results of the lifting of Apartheid, yes, I do agree that the two situations are very different. The Palestinians would drive the Jews (Israelis) out, if not on their own, then with the help of their neighbours. Blood is thicker than water, and whatever other disagreements the Palestinians may have with Egypt or Syria or Jordan, they're still all Arabs and I think this would make a difference. They'd all combine to drive the Jews out. It would simply be a bloodbath.

The Zionism of Theodore Herzl, while being a political movement, was still almost an ideal, a kind of Utopia or Arcadia. Had it not been for the ongoing persecution of the Jews through pogroms, especially in the Pale and eastern Europe, I sometimes wonder if the desire to leave these troubled villages and regions would have been as great without Herzl's urging.

Yes, there was all the clap-trap about the promised land, etc. etc., but I'm not sure how many of those very early settlers cared much about the religious side of things then. Their focus was more on the political and Herzl's 'dream', and even today, almost 95% of the population can be regarded as 'secular', with no interest in religion whatsoever. Only 5% are really very religious, and unfortunately, it's this 5% who run the country, in a peculiarly gerrymandered style of government (IMHO).

The Zionism that pertains now, however, is not the original Zionism of Herzl's dream, but a far deadlier kind, much more political than ever before and quite insidious where the Palestinians and/or the Arabs are concerned. I don't subscribe to either brand, and personally, think they ought to be got rid of, the sooner the better.

It's down to these 'new' Zionists that most of the harm has come for what is being meted out to the Palestinians now. While I do not support Hamass or the Palestinian suicide bombers either, or see any more 'right' in what they are doing, I most certainly do not believe in this new form of Zionism, will have nothing to do with it and believe it has no more 'rights' than Hamass.

I am an Aussie first and foremost, then I'm a Jew. My loyalty is to our country, not Israel, although I feel for her plight. And I still believe it should be left up to the Palestinians and Israelis to sort out their own mess, without the rest of the world butting in. It's because of this outside interference that we see so much bloodshed -- from both sides -- that is so unnecessary and a lot of which would probably not have happened had the west kept out.

Yes, I know that's almost impossible because of the oil, which is what the major powers are really interested in. The US, UK, European Union and all the rest don't care two hoots about establishing 'democracy' anywhere in the middle east, be it Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine or Israel. All they want is to make sure the way is always clear for the oil to get through.

John, I fully agree with you that Zionism should be got rid of. If you've any bright ideas about how this can be achieved, do please let me know.

by levannah44

I agree. The only trouble is, finding many of the original owners isn't going to be easy. Like the Diaspora of the Jews from Jerusalem in the year 70, the Palestinians have been scattered far and wide, mostly settling in other Arab countries around the Mediterranean, and sixty years is a long time.

However, let's not overlook the fact that some Palestinian land was bought quite legitimately by the Jews through funds engendered by the early Zionist organisations in Palestine, which was its real purpose.

It remains to be seen how many owners can still be found, because you can be sure demands will be made for the proper deeds and title rights to be produced, or you'll simply have another bloodbath between the Palestinians, fighting for ownership of a patch of dirt.

by levannah44

Islam only began in the seventh century, CE, and Solomon's Empire was way back a thousand and more years before that.

However, Solomon may briefly have taken Gaza out of Egyptian control (whichever Pharaoh was in power then), before the Hittites, Assyrians, Babylonians, Greeks, Romans, Turks and the British Mandate -- in approximately that order -- variously did or did not include Gaza within their borders.

Certainly the spread of Islam in the early centuries after it was founded had Arabs dwelling there, but it would have been one or other of the above-mentioned powers which actually ruled there.

Which is all the more reason for returning it to the Arabs now. QED

by jck

so long it's given to the Arabs...and...not the Muslims.

Their predicate is that their "holiest place" (Jerusalem) was taken from them. Well if Islam wasn't instituted until 539 AD (or something like that...can't remember the exact date) and Jewish people ruled there before Islam even existed...

Wouldn't that mean it was a holy Jewish place first?? Does that mean the Jewish should kick all Muslims out of Israel and send them into the Gaza that they claim so much?

I still say...it was nice of Israel to give it to them...and...so predictable Israel even after giving them an olive branch got bombed again by the terrorist muslim idiots.

Dirt is so stupid to fight for...there's so much left of it to live on.

by levannah44

Hm, an interesting thought, jck. Yes, you're quite right in saying the Jews' claim to Jerusalem predated that of the Muslims by more than a thousand years, but unfortunately, right now, in the present, it's whose actually got it, not who claims it that counts.

As a matter of interest, Jewish legend has it that the Dome of the Rock, where the Al Aqsa mosque is situated, is actually the site of Mt Moriah (another thousand years before it became a city), where Isaac was offered as a sacrifice by his father, Abraham.

Unfortunately, if this tale has any truth in it, then it's also where the Muslims claim Abraham offered his elder son, Ishmael, as a sacrifice, not Isaac as we are told.

So although Islam wasn't founded until nearly two thousand years later, with the added claim that the Dome of the Rock was the place where Mohammed ascended to heaven, we could have something of a further fight on our hands over these claims.

And when it comes to bits of dirt, even myths and fables can be used as evidence!!

G

by jdclyde

"drive them out".

No, they would WIPE THEM OUT.

If they did anything to advance themselves and had the ability, the Palistinians would have killed every Jew they could get their hands on.

It is dishonest to even pretend otherwise.

by sleepin'dawg

[b][i]America?s support for the Gaza withdrawal is morally corrupt.[/i][/b]

By Elan Journo

In a step fraught with danger, Israel is uprooting its citizens and withdrawing its military from Gaza and parts of the West Bank. That Palestinian terrorists are rejoicing over this momentous pullout is hardly shocking. That the United States is also applauding is contemptible. Worse still, America is demanding more concessions of land: Secretary of State Rice has insisted, ?It cannot be Gaza only.?

Why is America urging Israel to make such perilous concessions? The rationale is that the withdrawal will open an unobstructed path for the ?downtrodden? Palestinians toward a self-governed ethnic state. Such a state, Washington hopes, will alleviate their suffering and establish peaceful co-existence between Israel and the Palestinians.

But such a state will intensify the misery of the few genuinely freedom-seeking Palestinians by entrenching a tyrannical regime. The Palestinian Authority, a provisional governing body, has drained the lifeblood out of its citizens, trampled on their rights and, despite receiving billions in foreign aid, kept them in devastating poverty. Under the PA?s anarchic reign, rival ?security forces? arbitrarily seize property, arrest and jail people without charge, and summarily execute dissidents.

The actual victors of the withdrawal are terrorists and their vast legions of reverent supporters in the Palestinian population. The motto emblazoned on banners throughout Gaza expresses their belief, borne out in practice, that violence works: ?Gaza Today. The West Bank and Jerusalem Tomorrow.? The withdrawal has strengthened their resolve, not to achieve peace, but to destroy Israel. ?We?re going to keep our weapons,? one terrorist told reporters, ?because the battle with the enemy is a long one.? A cleric allied to Hamas, which has carried out umpteen suicide bombings in Israel, observed that ?when we offer up our children [as ?martyrs?], it is much better than choosing the road of humiliation and negotiations.?

As some have observed, with a populace and leadership so hospitable to terrorists, in time the Palestinian territories may succeed Taliban-ruled Afghanistan as a training ground for jihadists, lusting to murder not only in the streets of Jerusalem and Baghdad, but also London and New York.

Israel?s retreat from Gaza--rightly celebrated by terrorists--is neither a means of fostering peace, nor a solution for the plight of innocent Palestinians. Why, then, does America support it?

Because Washington holds that Israel has no moral right to assert its interests, but the Palestinians do. Their quest for statehood enjoys Washington?s wholehearted support, encouragement and financing as an incontestable entitlement--even if they tyrannize themselves and terrorize Israel. But if Israel pursues its interests, by contrast, Washington considers that a moral transgression. Israel could, and for a time did, easily protect the lives and property of all individuals within its borders and the contested territories, by smashing aggressors and imposing its rule of law on Palestinians (which innocent Palestinians welcomed). But Washington refuses on principle to endorse such assertions of Israeli interests.

Why this double standard? Our leaders believe in altruism: the view that one?s highest moral duty is to selflessly serve the needy--and thus that the world?s ?haves? must sacrifice for the sake of its ?have-nots.? The productive, on this abhorrent view, have no moral right to pursue their own interests; their only justification for existing is to serve the needy. Because Israel is strong and prosperous, it is thereby forbidden from imposing its will on the destitute Palestinians--even though it is the innocent victim of Palestinian aggression. Because the Palestinians are weak and poor, they may demand anything they wish--including a state with which to terrorize Israel.

It might seem that President Bush is being hypocritical: forbidding an ally, Israel, from fighting terrorism effectively even as U.S. forces wage a ?war on terror.? But observe that in fact he is being devastatingly consistent. For Bush, Iraqis are entitled to the sanctity of their Mosques--but our troops are forbidden from rooting out insurgents hiding and sniping from within; Iraqis are entitled to textbooks, hospitals, sewers, roads--but, in defending themselves, our troops must place the lives of Iraqi civilians (some of whom are or aid insurgents) above their own. Attesting to the cost of this sacrificial policy is the burgeoning U.S. death toll.

And Washington has refused to impose on Iraq a constitution that would make the new regime non-threatening--as we did in Japan after World War II. In the name of satisfying the poor Iraqis? demand for ?self-determination,? President Bush has pledged to recognize as sovereign whatever regime the Iraqis vote for--even a militantly hostile Islamic theocracy that, in unison with Iran?s mullahs, clamors for ?Death to America.?

Neither Israel nor the United States can vanquish Islamist terrorism unless it repudiates the corrupt morality of altruism, which enjoins the sacrifice of the successful as an ideal. Victory can only be achieved if one is convinced of one?s moral right to live and to act consistently to achieve one?s goals. Every self-effacing step that Israel takes--in lockstep with America and with our blessing--encourages the terrorists with the belief that their success is achievable.

Elan Journo is a junior fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute in Irvine, Calif. The Institute promotes the ideas of Ayn Rand--best-selling author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead and originator of the philosophy of Objectivism.

Copyright ? 2005 Ayn Rand? Institute. All rights reserved.

[b][i]Having been posted to the UN peace keeping forces in 1960. I lived in Rafah, Egypt which was in the Gaza. The Palestinians were viewed by both the Egyptians and Israelis as undisciplined, dangerous and untrustworthy. We soon adopted a similar attitude since we encountered, sporadically to be sure, senseless attacks that on the surface, were hard for us to understand. After all, we were there as a police force not an army of occupation. Our presence there was to ensure peace and keep the opposing parties apart. One would have expected the Palestinians to be grateful for our presence since when Israel retaliated against some of their more blatant incursions, they were much more efficient at destroying the Palestinians than they were in attacking Israel. In fourty-five years little has changed. Palestinians are still dying in attacks in Israel but the stupidity of the situation is really driven home when one realizes that Palestinians usually kill more of their own than they do of their enemy. They scream and rave about Arab brotherhood but no Arab state wants them as residents since wherever they gone they have caused trouble and conflict. Jordan drove them out at gunpoint. They exacerbated the problems in Lebanon. Now they have taken to strapping explosives to children and teenagers and sending them to blowup the innocent and unwary many of whom are their own people. Their behavior is akin to that of rabid dogs and perhaps should be dealt with accordingly. When we arrived in Rafah, we were unprejudiced but when we left we, to a man, felt that the only Palestinian we could trust was a dead one and unfortunately, nothing has changed.[/i][/b]

[b]Dawg[/b] ]:)

by eternallysecure

A Palestinian state was to exist alongside Israel, but the Palestinians decided they wanted all or nothing. Egypt and allies said, "Come over here so we can destroy Israel, then you can come share the spoils." The "Six Day War" began, Israel miraculously conquers, and takes Gaza, the West Bank, etc. After their defeat, the "refugees" were stuck, and nobody really cared to help them until recently.

Maybe if the terrorist attacks had stopped already, this may not be a bad idea. But when Israel pulls out, they are utterly defenseless. I think they should have at the least put it to a vote of the entire Israeli population.

by levannah44

Looks like they may be about to, ES. Benjamin Netanyahu is back again, this time running AGAINST Ariel Sharon, who, I believe, may probably even form his own breakaway party as a result.

It should be very interesting to see the results when the elections come up soon. The Likud Party has never been so divided as it is now.

G

by jck

It was right. It was a nice olive branch for them to extend to show the muslim radicals they wanted peace.

Of course a week or two after they moved everyone out, the Palestinian muslim extremists bombed somewhere.

I say...hunt em down...kill em all (the terrorists/extremeists)...let Allah/God/Yahweh sort em out.

by levannah44

Nice thought, jck! Would that it were so easy!

While I definitely support the withdrawal, I think it's going to be some considerable time yet before we see real peace in the middle east. Like, maybe even a generation or two, when those as yet unborn (on both sides) are running things and are therefore able to see events in an entirely different light to their present-day counterparts.

I'm not sure if I'll prove right. I just hope.

G

by kleintology

levannah44,

It's hard to look within, from the outside, even as a "participant in spirit." As an Amer-Israeli Jew, currently living in America (after many years of Israeli residency) I struggle daily with my guilt at having left my "home," to insure the future of my family. I have a wife, and an infant child buried there, victims of the "Palestinian Agenda" to destroy Israel.

How much time as a Jew have you actually spent in Israel, living each day in peril, for over a generation?

How many of your relatives are laying dead in the street, at the hands of Palestinian fundamentalists, because they committed the crime of walking down their own streets?

The dilemma of Gaza's "past" cannot be undone. But, it's future can be determined. To vacate the Gaza allows a highly motivated and hateful opponent to use that very land as a staging area to launch further conflicts against the Israeli people.

Notwithstanding all the other reasons, for that reason alone, the Gaza Strip must not be allowed to become sanctuary for terrorists aimed at the destruction of Israel.

To do less mandates that one embrace the viper, and pray that it doesn't act on it's true nature.

The idea of a fellow Jew embracing the Palestinian State is unsettling. Would that you could actually live among your people, in Irael, for a time. Then, your vision might be clearer.

That's just my opinion.

This discussion is closed to new replies.