Palestinian Right of Return

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

You are the one that brought up the history of US conflict with natives and Mexicans, not me. I was responding to your question. I certainly have not equated it to the current Israel/Palestine conflict. I simply said that we committed genocide/ethnic cleansing on the Indians on numerous occasions. Would you or Tex disagree with that assessment?

You are presenting a false dichotomy, Leb. You're casting what happened in the 19th century in 21st century terms, and radioactive terms to boot. If a country went out today and did what we did then, yes, I think there would be an outcry. World politics has changed in 200 years.

That doesn't mean that it's "genocide" for crying out loud, especially as we think of the term today. American settlers did not set out in the West to exterminate the American Indian.

This is just a reflection of the conversation over Japanese internment camps. We have good people making the best decisions they can with the information they had, and the world they lived in. And we have a bunch of pointy-headed "smart guys" who benefited from those decisions, tsk-tsking at them from their comfortable armchairs a few decades later.

[SeattleUte]

Scanning this thread is Kafkaesque for me. Tex, I generally endorse your posts here. You're right. As for Waters and Lebowski, they have soft pointy heads.

[SeattleUte]

Seriously, hasn't it been clear for a long time that there's a piece of real estate to be had for a Palestinian nation, if its citizens (or, more precisely, the neo-facsist thugs who claim to speak for the Palestinians) would have Israel as their neighbor and recognize the right of a Jewish state to exist?

[BYU71]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

You are the one that brought up the history of US conflict with natives and Mexicans, not me. I was responding to your question. I certainly have not equated it to the current Israel/Palestine conflict. I simply said that we committed genocide/ethnic cleansing on the Indians on numerous occasions. Would you or Tex disagree with that assessment?

I would agree with that assessment. You did say numerous occasions. I take that to mean not "all" occasions or even necessarily "most" occasions.


The point I was trying to make with Mike was that some occupations ultimately are good for the occupier. As Mike skillfully does, even better than ex, he moves the discussion to another area. In this case genocide. Moving along with him I brought up the occupation of Mexico's territory that has worked out well for the occupier without genocide.

Rotten things done in the context of the whole doesn't necessarily mean the result will be unfavorable.

This is a trite metaphor, but all I can think of. You can throw several inteceptions in a game, but still win the game.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by Tex

You are presenting a false dichotomy, Leb. You're casting what happened in the 19th century in 21st century terms, and radioactive terms to boot. If a country went out today and did what we did then, yes, I think there would be an outcry. World politics has changed in 200 years.

That doesn't mean that it's "genocide" for crying out loud, especially as we think of the term today. American settlers did not set out in the West to exterminate the American Indian.

"dichotomy"? What dichotomy?

There are plenty of episodes in our history with the native Americans that would qualify as genocide or ethnic cleansing. To say otherwise exhibits a profound ignorance of US history.

What about the wholesale slaughter of Navajos leading up to the "Long Walk" relocating what remained of the tribe from Arizona to Mexico? Even the US public at the time thought that was a horrible idea and it was reversed after three years.

What about the "Trail of Tears" relocation of the Cherokee from Georgia to Oklahoma? What term would you use to describe that?

What about the systematic slaughter of the buffalo over the period of a few months by the US government to cut off the Indians' food supply to finally break them?

Pointing out these episodes in our history doesn't mean that there were easy answers at the time, nor does it mean I don't love my country. It is simply being honest. We have done some wonderful things in our past and we have done some horrible things.

Originally Posted by Tex

This is just a reflection of the conversation over Japanese internment camps. We have good people making the best decisions they can with the information they had, and the world they lived in. And we have a bunch of pointy-headed "smart guys" who benefited from those decisions, tsk-tsking at them from their comfortable armchairs a few decades later.

Help me out here, Tex. How did I benefit from the Japanese internment camps?

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by BYU71

The point I was trying to make with Mike was that some occupations ultimately are good for the occupier. As Mike skillfully does, even better than ex, he moves the discussion to another area. In this case genocide. Moving along with him I brought up the occupation of Mexico's territory that has worked out well for the occupier without genocide.

Well if you want to go down that road, I suppose you may want to trot out Lingo's argument that slavery was a good thing since the descendants of slaves ending up living in the US as opposed to Africa.

As far as Mexican territory is concerned, the US granted full rights of citizenship to the people in the conquered lands. That certainly has not happened in the West Bank and I doubt it ever will.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Seriously, hasn't it been clear for a long time that there's a piece of real estate to be had for a Palestinian nation, if its citizens (or, more precisely, the neo-facsist thugs who claim to speak for the Palestinians) would have Israel as their neighbor and recognize the right of a Jewish state to exist?

Your ignorance is showing. If you were to offer the Palestinians full autonomy, removal of settlements, restoration of water, etc. in the West Bank in exchange for recognition of Israel's right to exist, the majority of them would take that in a heartbeat. It has never been offered.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Scanning this thread is Kafkaesque for me. Tex, I generally endorse your posts here. You're right. As for Waters and Lebowski, they have soft pointy heads.

Enlighten us, oh Wise One. Point out the errors in our posts.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by Jeff Lebowski

Your ignorance is showing. If you were to offer the Palestinians full autonomy, removal of settlements, restoration of water, etc. in the West Bank in exchange for recognition of Israel's right to exist, the majority of them would take that in a heartbeat. It has never been offered.

Does it matter what a majority of Palestinians want? I didn't know Palestinians was a democracy.

[Jeff Lebowski]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Does it matter what a majority of Palestinians want? I didn't know Palestinians was a democracy.

Come on. You can do better than that.