"MY NAME IS SHARI"


Recommended Posts

Thanks for the information Bob. The history that I have read so far implies that the Palestinians would have agreed to a one state solution but the Jews wanted their own state, and only attacked after the Jews declared independence.

That history is false. Jews were under attack from the time they established communities on land purchased from the Ottoman Empire. Muslims were not going to tolerate a Jewish presence in their midst --- period.

Had the Palestinians been willing to live and let live, the Jewish areas of what is now the State of Israel would have been a recognized enclave in a larger area. The Jewish Agency would not have been forced to create a State to protect Jewish lives and property. But that is not the way it happened. The Palestinians, generally, have never been willing to put up with Jews as a recognizable economic and political entity. The only way Palestinians will accept Jews is as second class people in their midst. Well, turnabout is fair play.

As the late Abba Eben once observed -- The Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. They have brought the misery they suffer upon their own heads. The withdrawal of settlements from Gaza and the subsequent Palestinian on Palestinian violence show clearly that the Palestinian people DO NOT constitute a Nation nor have they the competence to govern themselves. They are a crude violent lot and if the Jews disappeared they would still live in misery and squalor. They are whiners and incompetents. And they blame their own deficiencies on the Jews.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited by BaalChatzaf
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 109
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

But by the same token, that is basically what we did to the Native Americans in this country, so we are not necessarily off the hook, we just made sure that almost of all of the natives were killed.

--Dustan

Careful, "we" is all wrong.

--Brant

When I say we, I mean as United States policy at the time.

--Dustan

That was not U.S. policy at that or any time. You are talking about Hitler, now.

--Brant

No I am talking about the US policy and actions towards the native Americans of this county.

--Dustan

Link to post
Share on other sites
That history is false. Jews were under attack from the time they established communities on land purchased from the Ottoman Empire. Muslims were not going to tolerate a Jewish presence in their midst --- period.

Had the Palestinians been willing to live and let live, the Jewish areas of what is now the State of Israel would have been a recognized enclave in a larger area. The Jewish Agency would not have been forced to create a State to protect Jewish lives and property. But that is not the way it happened. The Palestinians, generally, have never been willing to put up with Jews as a recognizable economic and political entity. The only way Palestinians will accept Jews is as second class people in their midst. Well, turnabout is fair play.

I am doing research so I will see if I can verify this. Thanks, Dustan

Link to post
Share on other sites
As the late Abba Eben once observed -- The Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. They have brought the misery they suffer upon their own heads. The withdrawal of settlements from Gaza and the subsequent Palestinian on Palestinian violence show clearly that the Palestinian people DO NOT constitute a Nation nor have they the competence to govern themselves. They are a crude violent lot and if the Jews disappeared they would still live in misery and squalor. They are whiners and incompetents. And they blame their own deficiencies on the Jews.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Sounds like stereotyping to me. Are ALL Palestinians like this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

As the late Abba Eben once observed -- The Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. They have brought the misery they suffer upon their own heads. The withdrawal of settlements from Gaza and the subsequent Palestinian on Palestinian violence show clearly that the Palestinian people DO NOT constitute a Nation nor have they the competence to govern themselves. They are a crude violent lot and if the Jews disappeared they would still live in misery and squalor. They are whiners and incompetents. And they blame their own deficiencies on the Jews.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Sounds like stereotyping to me. Are ALL Palestinians like this?

They are this way when they gather in large groups. Read the newspapers. Palestinians who are reasonable have learned to keep silent in public for their own safety. What would it take to convince you that Palestinians en mass are virtually impossible to deal with?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to post
Share on other sites
They are this way when they gather in large groups. Read the newspapers. Palestinians who are reasonable have learned to keep silent in public for their own safety. What would it take to convince you that Palestinians en mass are virtually impossible to deal with?

Ba'al Chatzaf

OK, so SOME Palestinians are reasonable, that was the point I was trying to make. People often behave poorly in large groups, look at what happens when a team wins the Superbowl or the World Series, sometimes riots break out.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But by the same token, that is basically what we did to the Native Americans in this country, so we are not necessarily off the hook, we just made sure that almost of all of the natives were killed.

--Dustan

Careful, "we" is all wrong.

--Brant

When I say we, I mean as United States policy at the time.

--Dustan

That was not U.S. policy at that or any time. You are talking about Hitler, now.

--Brant

No I am talking about the US policy and actions towards the native Americans of this county.

--Dustan

Well, defend your thesis.

--Brant

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, defend your thesis.

--Brant

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Americ...e_United_States

This is just a summary.

Also one that comes immediately to mind was the treatment of Native Americans in Texas. The Commanche and Apache were very warful tribes and terrorized the expanding settlers. In response the settlers, US Army, and Texas Rangers would go on Indian killing sprees. Also, I can't remember off the top of my head, but a Texas Ranger Captian caught the Commanches (the entire Commanche nation, men, women and children) in the Palo Duro Canyon in far west Texas. These were the Commanches lead by Quannah Parker and they would hide in the canyon to go undetected. The Rangers went in and killed every single horse in the whole valley. The horse was to the Indians what oil is to us today, they critical means of survival. This effectively eliminated the Commanches and forced the ones who could make it on foot to the reservations (concentration camp?) in Oklahoma.

If you want more information, go research it. Especially Andrew Jackson and then the plains indian wars.

--Dustan

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, defend your thesis.

--Brant

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Americ...e_United_States

This is just a summary.

Also one that comes immediately to mind was the treatment of Native Americans in Texas. The Commanche and Apache were very warful tribes and terrorized the expanding settlers. In response the settlers, US Army, and Texas Rangers would go on Indian killing sprees. Also, I can't remember off the top of my head, but a Texas Ranger Captian caught the Commanches (the entire Commanche nation, men, women and children) in the Palo Duro Canyon in far west Texas. These were the Commanches lead by Quannah Parker and they would hide in the canyon to go undetected. The Rangers went in and killed every single horse in the whole valley. The horse was to the Indians what oil is to us today, they critical means of survival. This effectively eliminated the Commanches and forced the ones who could make it on foot to the reservations (concentration camp?) in Oklahoma.

If you want more information, go research it. Especially Andrew Jackson and then the plains indian wars.

--Dustan

You forgot to mention the gas chambers and ovens into which we herded and shoveled all those poor, rights-respecting Native Americans. I mean, all they did was kill Jesus and charge us exorbitant interest rates. So did the Japanese-Americans, which is why we gassed and cremated them during World War II. Who needs Hitler, when you have the subhuman, genocidal U.S. government to kick the asses of the inferior races!

REB

Link to post
Share on other sites
How does WWII atrocities justify the attempt at genocide of American Indians in the 1800's? This attempt has been well documented.

Genocide is evil regardless of who does it (like slavery). That's why it stopped in the USA.

Michael

I recall reading of atrocities and massacres -- on both sides -- in the U.S. I don't recall reading of attempts at genocide. Forced relocation, as in "The Trail of Tears," might be what you're thinking of, but even that does not compare with what the Germans did to the Jews in WW2.

REB

Link to post
Share on other sites
You forgot to mention the gas chambers and ovens into which we herded and shoveled all those poor, rights-respecting Native Americans. I mean, all they did was kill Jesus and charge us exorbitant interest rates. So did the Japanese-Americans, which is why we gassed and cremated them during World War II. Who needs Hitler, when you have the subhuman, genocidal U.S. government to kick the asses of the inferior races!

REB

Is it just me or are others having trouble following this discussion? Killed Jesus?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I recall reading of atrocities and massacres -- on both sides -- in the U.S. I don't recall reading of attempts at genocide. Forced relocation, as in "The Trail of Tears," might be what you're thinking of, but even that does not compare with what the Germans did to the Jews in WW2.

REB

Roger read:

http://www.iearn.org/hgp/aeti/aeti-1997/na...-americans.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_hi...igenous_peoples

http://www.wicocomico-indian-nation.com/pages/genocide.html

From L. Frank Baum, author of "The Wizard of Oz"

Quote; The nobility of the Redskin is extinquished and what few are left are a pack of whining curs who lick the hand that smites them. The whites by law of conquest, by justice of civilization, are masters of the American continent, and the best safety of the frontier settlements will be secured by the total annihilation of the few remaining Indians.(WHY NOT ANNIHILATION?)Their glory has fled, their spirit broken, their manhood effaced, better they should die than live the miserable wretches that they are

An Indian named American Horse, who had been friendly to the American troops for years gave this narrative of the slaughter at Wounded Knee; "they turned their guns, Hotchkiss guns upon the women who were in the lodges standing there under a flag of truce, and of course as soon as they were fired upon they fled...There was a women with an infant in her arms who was killed as she almost touched the flag of truce, and the women and children of course were strewn all along the circular village untill they were dispatched. Right near the flag of truce a mother was shot down with her infant; the child not knowing that it's mother was dead was still nursing, and that especially was a very sad sight.The women as they were fleeing with their babies were killed together, shot right through, and the women who were heavy with child were also killed...After most of them had been killed a cry was made that all those who were not killed or wounded should come forth and they would be safe. Little boys who were not wounded came out of their places of refuge, and as soon as they came in sight, a number of soldiers surrounded them and butchered them there... Of course it would have been alright if only the men were killed; we would feel almost grateful for it. But the fact of the killing of the women and more especially of the of the young boys and girls who are to go to make up the future of the Indian people, is the saddest part of the whole affair and we feel it very sorely." Unquote"

Shortly after the massacre, Baum stated his approval, in the "Aberdeen Saturday Pioneer's paper stating that; we had better, in order to protect our civilization, follow it up and wipe these untamed and untameable creatures from the face of the earth.

Well at least they didn't bake them in an oven, Right Roger?

What is really sickening is people who will not even let you touch the "Israel/Palestine" because of the WWII holocaust, but will turn a blind eye to other atrocities that occur around the world. My gut feeling is they do this because what happened in WWII happened to "white" people, and incidences like this happened to "brown" people, like the Native Americans, or the Sudanese, or African Slaves.

--Dustan

Link to post
Share on other sites
I recall reading of atrocities and massacres -- on both sides -- in the U.S. I don't recall reading of attempts at genocide. Forced relocation, as in "The Trail of Tears," might be what you're thinking of, but even that does not compare with what the Germans did to the Jews in WW2.

Roger,

A pretty good overview of constant broken treaties, relocations and outright attempts at genocide in everything but word is given in Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee by Dee Brown (the link is to Google books and a good portion of it can be read for free online). There are other reliable sources. Of course, Indians committed atrocities, too. Warring was part of their culture, including that horrible mutilation-trophy practice of scalping. It was a bad time all round.

What happened back then had a different flavor than what happened with Jews in WWII. But like Rand said, it doesn't matter to a dead person whether he is killed by one manner or another. He is still just as dead. Killing by gas chamber or killing by starvation leaves the dead just as dead.

One of the greatnesses of America is not in the fact that we have done no wrong. It is in the fact that we correct ourselves. Other cultures, like Germany, needed to be whipped in order to stop.

Genocide is evil. America embraced that idea on its own. I am proud to be an American.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

There were quite a few Indian massacres by military and para-military forces in the 19th C. Most of the decimation of Indian populations happened because of smallpox and influenza. It was never U.S. policy, regardless, to go forth and kill millions of Indians. The closest thing to an actual, sanctioned U.S. genocide was the killing of maybe 200,000 Filipinaeyes. One might make a good case for de facto as opposed to de jure genocidal behavior of the U.S. government over a very long period of time to this day which would encompass the various Indian cultures as opposed to simply killing people.

The South Sea islanders lost millions of their populations because of influenza also.

--Brant

Edited by Brant Gaede
Link to post
Share on other sites
There were quite a few Indian massacres by military and para-military forces in the 19th C. Most of the decimation of Indian populations happened because of smallpox and influenza. It was never U.S. policy, regardless, to go forth and kill millions of Indians. The closest thing to an actual, sanctioned genocide was the killing of maybe 200,000 Filipinaeyes. One might make a good case for a de facto as opposed to de jure genocidal behavior of the U.S. government over a very long period of time to this day which would encompass the various Indian cultures.

The South Sea islanders lost millions of their populations because of influenza also.

--Brant

Brant,

There are some article and reports that the Military spread the diseases when ever they could on purpose.

Also, just because it is not a "law" does not mean that it does not become part of policy. The President is commander and chief of the armed forces. If military was exterminating Indian populations then it was policy.

--Dustan

Edited by Aggrad02
Link to post
Share on other sites

Brant,

I am of the "de facto" school for outright genocide. There was no official policy that I know of other than the government not taking Indians all that seriously by constantly entering treaties with then breaking them.

Interestingly, there is something I just remembered about scalping. It has been years since I read Dee Brown's book, but apparently Indians learned scalping from the white man in a particular massacre (I don't remember the name, but it is in the book) where not only hair was removed, but there was a lot of genital mutilations and things like that. However, Indian culture was such that they thought scalping was a really good idea and the practice spread like wildfire.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites

There were quite a few Indian massacres by military and para-military forces in the 19th C. Most of the decimation of Indian populations happened because of smallpox and influenza. It was never U.S. policy, regardless, to go forth and kill millions of Indians. The closest thing to an actual, sanctioned genocide was the killing of maybe 200,000 Filipinaeyes. One might make a good case for a de facto as opposed to de jure genocidal behavior of the U.S. government over a very long period of time to this day which would encompass the various Indian cultures.

The South Sea islanders lost millions of their populations because of influenza also.

--Brant

Brant,

There are some article and reports that the Military spread the diseases when ever they could on purpose.

Also, just because it is not a "law" does not mean that it does not become part of policy. The President is commander and chief of the armed forces. If military was exterminating Indian populations then it was policy.

--Dustan

All we are really doing is arguing over general terms, not the actual particulars, but the particulars do not add up to U.S. policy to kill millions upon millions of Native Americans. And yes, Andrew Jackson was an SOB, a fact not properly recognized.

--Brant

Link to post
Share on other sites
All we are really doing is arguing over general terms, not the actual particulars, but the particulars do not add up to U.S. policy to kill millions upon millions of Native Americans. And yes, Andrew Jackson was an SOB, a fact not properly recognized.

--Brant

nearly half the Cherokee Nation perished on -The Trail of Tears-. It was America's version of the Bata'an Death March. The wars against the aboriginals was not so much genocide as removal. The idea was to get the savages out of the way so Americans could occupy and use the the land. That is why aboriginals were forced to move to reservations.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to post
Share on other sites
Interestingly, there is something I just remembered about scalping.

Yes, Michael, scalping was first used as a way to determine payment to mercenaries sent by the British Crown into Ireland to kill Irishmen--more scalps, more proof of murder, more payment. When the Crown was done with that campaign, they sent the same mercenaries to America to kill Indians. The Native American "military" was so astounded and so impressed with the savagery of scalping they felt that they must "escalate" their practices to match it. Culturally, yes, scalping had a strange connection to the difficult to translate concept of "counting coup"--a practice derived from the ritual shaming of an enemy by touching or hitting your enemy on the head. The concept expanded and changed over time and across native cultures to include stealing an enemy camp's horses, for instance, and eventually included this practice of scalping.

-Kevin

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, Michael, scalping was first used as a way to determine payment to mercenaries sent by the British Crown into Ireland to kill Irishmen--more scalps, more proof of murder, more payment. When the Crown was done with that campaign, they sent the same mercenaries to America to kill Indians. The Native American "military" was so astounded and so impressed with the savagery of scalping they felt that they must "escalate" their practices to match it. Culturally, yes, scalping had a strange connection to the difficult to translate concept of "counting coup"--a practice derived from the ritual shaming of an enemy by touching or hitting your enemy on the head. The concept expanded and changed over time and across native cultures to include stealing an enemy camp's horses, for instance, and eventually included this practice of scalping.

-Kevin

And wasn't it also British soldiers who first beheaded captured soldiers in an attempt to demoralize their opponents in India - something which was used with captives in Iraq not so long ago?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Where exactly does it lay it all out.

. . .

The Palestinians (Muslim and Christians) revolted at what was Jewish occupation of their land. They lost and had even more property taken from them.

What is moral about this?

I haven't been here for a few days, and Bob (Ba'al) has addressed a lot of the points I would have made. I'd like to emphasize a few points:

--the Jews who emigrated to "Palestine" BOUGHT the land on which they settled from Arabs who were more than willing to sell it to them. It became theirs by right. They didn't take it by force.

--the land in the Middle East was all part of the Ottoman Empire. The land was divided up between Britain, France, and I forget who else, who then arbitrarily divided it up into Palestine, Iraq, whatever. (Does present-day Iraq make sense, given the tribal identities of its inhabitants? Of course not. The Europeans didn't care when they created it.) Palestine was Britain's.

--Britain was originally going to give ALL of "Palestine" to the Jews. Then they changed their mind and gave over 75 percent of it to the Arabs, and less than 25 percent of it to the Jews in response to Arab outrage. The Arabs still weren't satisfied and went to war over the issue.

--As a result of Britain's proposed 77/23 division, many Jews left prosperous, valuable land and emigrated to what is now Israel, abandoning their property to the benefit of the Arabs in what became Transjordan and is now Jordan. After the division, the Jordanians kicked out any remaining Jews.

--Israel widely broadcast information to the effect that Arabs in what was to become Israel NEED NOT LEAVE, but would retain all their rights as full Israeli citizens if they remained where they were. The surrounding Arabs, however, broadcast information to the effect that the Arabs should get out of what would become Israel so that the Arabs wouldn't have to worry about being harmed by the war, and promising that they could come back after Arab victory, getting back their own land and that of the Jews as well. When the Jews won the war, the Arabs who had left became "refugees". No Arab country would take them in. To this day, their descendants are kept in refugee camps in poor conditions to emphasize the "Plight of the Refugees". Their Arab neighbors care far more about the political value of having refugees in miserable conditions than they do about letting these people out of the camps and into normal society in other Arab countries. Their numbers have increased astronomically as a result of breeding in the camps. By the way: the Arabs who stayed in Israel became full citizens, and Arabs, though a minority, enjoy full privileges of voting, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and all other rights and privileges of Israeli citizenship today.

--so-called "Palestinians" are ethnically no different from Arabs in neighboring countries. There is no such thing as a "Palestinian", unlike, say, a Kurd or a Berber.

--all of the land settled by Jews has prospered. The surrounding land settled by Arabs is a vast wasteland. This fact has caused untold envy among the Arabs. The "Palestinians" want to come to Israel to work, but also say they want Israel to vanish from the map. To an Arab, this makes sense. They demanded the return of Gaza. When they did, I was relatively glad; I said, "Fine; let them rot in their own shit, without the Israelis to maintain order in there." And that's exactly what's happening. Note that their promises of peace in return for land have come to naught.

--Someone mentioned "reasonable 'Palestinians' ". Yes, of course there are a number of them. That's the good news. The bad news is that if they dare to open their mouths, their own people murder them. One can only pity them and hope that they find a way to escape. Israel is amazingly humanitarian; its hospitals have a policy of helping the most seriously ill and injured first, regardless of national origin or ethnic origin. If, somehow, some of them could get over there, and from there to the rest of the world, they might get a life. There are some amazingly close friendships between Israelis and Arabs.

--There were a few terrorist-like attacks by Jews in Israel's history, known mostly because there were so few of them; they can literally be counted on one person's fingers. Terrorist attacks by Arabs are common as grains of sand. That in itself tells me most of what I need to know.

--When Israeli soldiers have to enter a "Palestinian" home for any reason, they leave it in pristine condition; not only do they do no damage, they don't even leave dirty footprints or soiled dishes.

A good book on the subject is Alan Dershowitz's "The Case for Israel".

Judith

Link to post
Share on other sites
I am of the "de facto" school for outright genocide. There was no official policy that I know of other than the government not taking Indians all that seriously by constantly entering treaties with then breaking them.

I remember reading about this history of broken treaties and being shocked and horrified by it again and again. "How could they DO that? I kept asking myself. It finally sank in for me that it was racism. It had never occurred to me that Americans, people living in what I believe to be the most honest country in the history of the earth, could keep doing things like this until I realized that they didn't think that the people with whom they were making the agreements weren't fully human. I don't think any of us living today can put ourselves into that mindset.

Judith

Link to post
Share on other sites
--There were a few terrorist-like attacks by Jews in Israel's history, known mostly because there were so few of them; they can literally be counted on one person's fingers. Terrorist attacks by Arabs are common as grains of sand. That in itself tells me most of what I need to know.

When thinking about Israel's relationship with her Arab neighbors, I'm often reminded of Golda Meir, who said:

I can forgive the Arabs for killing our sons, but I cannot forgive the Arabs for making us kill them.

Mick

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now