Israel and West Bank Settlements

[MDlaxfan76]

Yes, thanks tech for posting this.

There's so much that she gets correct about the history and implications, that it obscures some of the absolutist statements she makes, leading to conclusions from that history which are quite questionable and highly problematic.

Yes, Israel has a tremendous claim on the land as the first single 'nation-state' (to our knowledge) to have ruled that land, governed by laws of their own creation. However, that statement itself ignores that the land was 'acquired' by force, the defeat in war of other tribes occupying the area as well.

It is an article of faith that the Lord gifted those lands to the Jewish tribe and that concept appears to imbue, without her saying so, her thinking as the "only" or "sole" legitimate claim to that region.

Even if we were to accept the notion that a claim of first nationhood is unique, she leaps to claims that there were no other claims, whether preceding or antecedent, which confer a measure of legitimacy as well.

What is the basis of the logic that an existence of a 'nation' confers legitimacy solely to that 'people' rather than to others who subsequently conquered those lands and lived there for centuries under their own laws and organization? Were there not natives in our own land who lived by their own forms of organization, rules, and sense of 'nation' preceding the arrival of Europeans? Is their claim to nationhood status the sole basis of legitimacy or does history have a reality that also confers legitimacy? (we could go way down the path of what is 'legitimacy' and how is it created in the consent of the governed, the degree of fairness of that society, but that's another topic!).

YES, the Jews have a legitimate claim and there was indeed a sound logic for 'return' of descendants to those lands, but is it the sole legitimate claim? She says, yes, there were no Palestinians, that it is a fiction to describe any people as such, because their ancestors had not called themselves this name, had not ruled a nation by this name. I think that's an absolutist statement that falls on its face, and worse, eliminates any possibility for compromise and peace.

She says again and again that the Arabs who had lived in those lands for many centuries, even thousands of years, had no legitimate claim to those lands and nor legitimate claim of holiness conferred to their places of worship in those lands, then, and their descendants have no legitimate claims now. Sure, lots of Arabs and their descendants who moved into those lands in resistance to the notion of a Jewish state may or may not be able to trace their personal lineage back to those lands, but that's not a universal reality for all those now described as "Palestinian".

On the other hand, she's quite correct that those who claim Israel has no right to exist are wrong, flat out. And she's right that in the extremist strongholds, the propaganda is that Jews are the source of all evil and must be eradicated. A grossly evil propaganda.

And she's correct to call out the centuries of anti-semitism that existed throughout Europe, including in Britain, including the period in which Britain resisted the international decision to enable a 'return'. (And when we, the US, were refusing to accept Jews during the Holocaust seeking asylum.) And she's correct that there's a rabid strain of anti-semitism on the left pervasive today...but by focusing on the anti-semitism of the left, she ignores the anti-semitism on the right as well...this stuff is very, very ugly and it exists on both ends of the spectrum, rearing its ugly head one either side as politics push one way or the other. Of course, I understand that her comments are flavored by her personal experiences of anti-semitism, which have largely come from the left given her views...and absolutist statements...but that doesn't help with the understanding of the full complexity.

I agree with her that this notion that we should not 'judge' Israel differently than we would, say Syria, holding Israel to a higher standard by granting permission to "developing" countries to be brutal and inhumane in ways we would condemn Israel for... that is bogus, and, at its roots likely based in anti-semitism. But that focus ignores that we should expect of all nations, including Israel, to be its best self, to be humane, to be fair, etc. Israel self-professes a large part of its own legitimacy upon its 'Western" values, so no total pass simply because it faces threats. But BS on giving a pass to those who were not "raised" that way, with those values. And those threats Israel faces are very real, as we've just witnessed yet again, so we need to understand that it's really, really hard to solve these problems, humanely. Maybe impossible.

Bottomline, I think she's too absolutist in some of her views...but an interesting and mostly fair description of history...at least from the perspective of Zionists. I'm with her on 90%...but that last 10% is very problematic.

[PizzaSnake]

Yes, thanks tech for posting this.

There's so much that she gets correct about the history and implications, that it obscures some of the absolutist statements she makes, leading to conclusions from that history which are quite questionable and highly problematic.

Yes, Israel has a tremendous claim on the land as the first single 'nation-state' (to our knowledge) to have ruled that land, governed by laws of their own creation. However, that statement itself ignores that the land was 'acquired' by force, the defeat in war of other tribes occupying the area as well.

It is an article of faith that the Lord gifted those lands to the Jewish tribe and that concept appears to imbue, without her saying so, her thinking as the "only" or "sole" legitimate claim to that region.

Even if we were to accept the notion that a claim of first nationhood is unique, she leaps to claims that there were no other claims, whether preceding or antecedent, which confer a measure of legitimacy as well.

What is the basis of the logic that an existence of a 'nation' confers legitimacy solely to that 'people' rather than to others who subsequently conquered those lands and lived there for centuries under their own laws and organization? Were there not natives in our own land who lived by their own forms of organization, rules, and sense of 'nation' preceding the arrival of Europeans? Is their claim to nationhood status the sole basis of legitimacy or does history have a reality that also confers legitimacy? (we could go way down the path of what is 'legitimacy' and how is it created in the consent of the governed, the degree of fairness of that society, but that's another topic!).

YES, the Jews have a legitimate claim and there was indeed a sound logic for 'return' of descendants to those lands, but is it the sole legitimate claim? She says, yes, there were no Palestinians, that it is a fiction to describe any people as such, because their ancestors had not called themselves this name, had not ruled a nation by this name. I think that's an absolutist statement that falls on its face, and worse, eliminates any possibility for compromise and peace.

She says again and again that the Arabs who had lived in those lands for many centuries, even thousands of years, had no legitimate claim to those lands and nor legitimate claim of holiness conferred to their places of worship in those lands, then, and their descendants have no legitimate claims now. Sure, lots of Arabs and their descendants who moved into those lands in resistance to the notion of a Jewish state may or may not be able to trace their personal lineage back to those lands, but that's not a universal reality for all those now described as "Palestinian".

On the other hand, she's quite correct that those who claim Israel has no right to exist are wrong, flat out. And she's right that in the extremist strongholds, the propaganda is that Jews are the source of all evil and must be eradicated. A grossly evil propaganda.

And she's correct to call out the centuries of anti-semitism that existed throughout Europe, including in Britain, including the period in which Britain resisted the international decision to enable a 'return'. (And when we, the US, were refusing to accept Jews during the Holocaust seeking asylum.) And she's correct that there's a rabid strain of anti-semitism on the left pervasive today...but by focusing on the anti-semitism of the left, she ignores the anti-semitism on the right as well...this stuff is very, very ugly and it exists on both ends of the spectrum, rearing its ugly head one either side as politics push one way or the other. Of course, I understand that her comments are flavored by her personal experiences of anti-semitism, which have largely come from the left given her views...and absolutist statements...but that doesn't help with the understanding of the full complexity.

I agree with her that this notion that we should not 'judge' Israel differently than we would, say Syria, holding Israel to a higher standard by granting permission to "developing" countries to be brutal and inhumane in ways we would condemn Israel for... that is bogus, and, at its roots likely based in anti-semitism. But that focus ignores that we should expect of all nations, including Israel, to be its best self, to be humane, to be fair, etc. Israel self-professes a large part of its own legitimacy upon its 'Western" values, so no total pass simply because it faces threats. But BS on giving a pass to those who were not "raised" that way, with those values. And those threats Israel faces are very real, as we've just witnessed yet again, so we need to understand that it's really, really hard to solve these problems, humanely. Maybe impossible.

Bottomline, I think she's too absolutist in some of her views...but an interesting and mostly fair description of history...at least from the perspective of Zionists. I'm with her on 90%...but that last 10% is very problematic.

"Yes, Israel has a tremendous claim on the land as the first single 'nation-state' (to our knowledge) to have ruled that land, governed by laws of their own creation. However, that statement itself ignores that the land was 'acquired' by force, the defeat in war of other tribes occupying the area as well."

This is a ridiculous argument. By this argument, the "first" group to "rule" a given area by its customs? So, are we bound by which tradition -- oral or literate? Shall this standard be applied to other geographic areas, or only this small piece of real estate? Same people? By what measure? Genetic haplogroup comparison?

Not trying to invalidate any criticisms of the barbarity of the actions of Hamas, nor excuse the policies and actions of Israel, but this analysis of the rightful ownership of a specfic area of the Earth based on a history composed of texts subject to revision over time strikes me as absurd.

How about we deal with the reality of the day: the people who live in Israel, Gaza and the West Bank are humans, and entitled to the same panoply of rights as all others? If they cannot receive them in that location, then where? Should there be a "sorting" based on genetic composition and probable location of ancestors? Would it be via haplogroup analysis? What if the haplogroup analysis changed as a result of the addition of so many more data points? Is there a haplogroup for religious beliefs? What if the "scores" mentioned below are the same for a Jewish Israeli and a "Palestinian"? What then?

There is an obvious problem with an ancestral claims -- there are WAY, WAY more fcuking humans than there were in past times, so which descendants get priority claim? Those whose lineal forebears most recently occupied the area? Would each person be assigned a "claimant score" based upon some sort of weird calculus? What if some of the current Israeli population are found to have lower "scores"? What of their claims?

This is ridiculous to contemplate. Let's deal with the facts: all of these people (Israelis, "Palestinians") are human beings, they have claim to certain "rights." What changes need to be made to accord all of the parties said human rights - you know, air, water, sustenance, right of free passage? 'Cause right now it is a shiteshow.

[MDlaxfan76]

Agreed.

[Kismet]

Of course, all of this historical discussion, however valid or invalid, will be inconsequential when Hamas starts executing hostages live on social media as IDF forces begin to insert into Gaza. At that time, we will all likely be treated to video of IDF forces rightfully doing to Hamas what Hamas did on Saturday. None of it will be very pretty.

Buckle up!

[jhu72]

The solution is reasonable leaders on both sides, but those leaders don't exist or don't hold power today and haven't for decades!!

The US should prepare to wash it's hands of Israel.

When has the PLO or HAMAS put forward a reasonable leader willing to accept a 2 state solution or anything less than the elimination of Israel?

Former Israeli PM Ehud Barak and President Bill Clinton offered Arafat the best deal the Palestinians will ever get on the table. Arafat turned down the two-state deal because he didn’t want to be remembered as the Palestinian leader who gave up the right of return and East Jerusalem.

Arafat’s catastrophic decision has resulted in this … I am now convinced that the Palestinians will never have their own state. And frankly, the world has moved beyond the Palestinians, even their brethren in the Arab world. Israel is far more important to the Arab nations than the Palestinians will ever be again. Indeed, the Palestinian people are more isolated than ever … and the Arab world treats them more as a nuisance and afterthought. What a tragedy … all brought on by the Palestinians’ incompetent and corrupt leaders.

The time for the Palestinians is over … this abomination of an attack by Hamas is the end of the Palestinian quest for their own nation.

DocBarrister

Arafat didn't make that decision. The hardline leaders in the PLO made it for him! The hardline leaders in Israel made it for him! Don't be naive. This is the truth of the Israeli - Palestinian conflict. It is the truth on the ground since before 1949. This all predates the rise to power of the religious fanatics in Iran. Leveling Iran, just levels Iran, it won't end this conflict.

A lot more people are going to die, most of them Palestinians. If you kill every Palestinian in Gaza, it will not end it.

[PizzaSnake]

Of course, all of this historical discussion, however valid or invalid, will be inconsequential when Hamas starts executing hostages live on social media as IDF forces begin to insert into Gaza. At that time, we will all likely be treated to video of IDF forces rightfully doing to Hamas what Hamas did on Saturday. None of it will be very pretty.

Buckle up!

Rightfully? To whom? Are all inhabitants of Gaza Hamas? How will guilt and culpability be determined? Will "justice" be an abbreviated military process -- you look like a Hamas operative so we will summarily execute you on sight?

Yeah, going to be some more evidence of why humans are so special, as though we had any doubts.

Going to be a paroxysm of blood-lust revenge. Humans haven't changed much over the years. Justifications and "gods" may change, but basic, crappy behavior, not so much.

[Seacoaster(1)]

Of course, all of this historical discussion, however valid or invalid, will be inconsequential when Hamas starts executing hostages live on social media as IDF forces begin to insert into Gaza. At that time, we will all likely be treated to video of IDF forces rightfully doing to Hamas what Hamas did on Saturday. None of it will be very pretty.

Buckle up!

Yes, and I cannot see it happening any other way right now.

[Kismet]

Of course, all of this historical discussion, however valid or invalid, will be inconsequential when Hamas starts executing hostages live on social media as IDF forces begin to insert into Gaza. At that time, we will all likely be treated to video of IDF forces rightfully doing to Hamas what Hamas did on Saturday. None of it will be very pretty.

Buckle up!

Rightfully? To whom? Are all inhabitants of Gaza Hamas? How will guilt and culpability be determined? Will "justice" be an abbreviated military process -- you look like a Hamas operative so we will summarily execute you on sight?

Yeah, going to be some more evidence of why humans are so special, as though we had any doubts.

Going to be a paroxysm of blood-lust revenge. Humans haven't changed much over the years. Justifications and "gods" may change, but basic, crappy behavior, not so much.

Apologies of you were offended. Thackeray was correct after all.

“Revenge may be wicked, but it’s natural.” ― William Makepeace Thackeray, Vanity Fair

[Matnum PI]

... we should expect of all nations, including Israel, to be its best self, to be humane, to be fair, etc....

MD, sincere question, do you believe that Hamas and the Palestinians want Peace? Or are they committed to getting the Jews out of Israel?

[MDlaxfan76]

... we should expect of all nations, including Israel, to be its best self, to be humane, to be fair, etc....

MD, sincere question, do you believe that Hamas and the Palestinians want Peace? Or are they committed to getting the Jews out of Israel?

First, let's note and agree that "Hamas" and "Palestinians" are NOT synonymous. Agree?

On Hamas, no, they have been quite explicit in their desire to kill any and all Jews and to remove by any means necessary all Jews from the land. That's their training of children under their control. And their actions speak even louder.

But "Palestinians" are another matter. Many are 'with' Hamas ideologically; some others see Hamas and their actions as necessary to create a situation in which they can eventually have 'peace'. I think both are wrong, or worse.

But the majority of Palestinians, I "believe", want a peaceful and prosperous solution that doesn't include expelling Jews from at least a portion of what is now Israel. But the distance from such an answer is extremely depressing. And they're not in control of the power as a result of the iron-fisted control of the extremists.

And their leaders have for decades tragically rejected pathways that could have led to peace.

I'd hope that my prior comments have been clear about the above.

[Matnum PI]

... But the majority of Palestinians, I "believe", want a peaceful and prosperous solution that doesn't include expelling Jews from at least a portion of what is now Israel...

I believed the same for many years.

[jhu72]

I'm not posting this podcast to make any personal statement but to promote honest discussion

https://twitter.com/triggerpod/status/1 ... 7432035724

Thanks for posting this, and I mean that sincerely. I will give it a better listen this evening after work. I got about 7 or 8 minutes into it, and found myself wondering how helpful, really, it is to canvas the ancient history and territorial occupation of "Palestine," the Balfour Declaration, and the Crown's obligations after WW1.

As an American, I try not to be an apologist for either "side" in this mess. But the die is long cast now, Israel was formed and accepted into the international community in 1948. Much of the trauma we witness today seems -- and I am generalizing, which is probably a bad idea -- to be the outgrowth of the Arab world's inability and unwillingness to accept that Israel is a proper and legitimate nation state, with the right to its own self-determination and security. Israeli excesses or, if you want, "crimes" against the Palestinians derives from this decades-long unwillingness to accept the fact that Israel also has a legitimate claim to the territory, and that that claim precedes the Balfour Declaration by centuries.

And separate from all of this talk of historical antecedents and territorial primacy, I always ask myself: is Hamas the legitimate agent of the "Palestinian people"? Count me as doubtful.

... I did a little reading last night. The seeds of this mess go back prior to the end of WW1 (so does the propaganda - on both sides) into the second half of the 1800s. The Jews like to hang their hat on the founding of the modern recognized nation state. The Palestinians on the majority of settlers in the area. The Romans at the time of Hadrian saw the Palestinians and Jews as living in a Christian country. You go back even further to the time of the Greeks and they saw the Palestinians and the Jews as one people!

[Kismet]

Might also recall that Islam and Judaism share the same progeny. Both faiths descend from the same patriarch - Abraham - Jews through his son Isaac (mother Sarah) and Muslims through son Ishmael (mother Hagar The Egyptian servant to Sarah).

[jhu72]

... But the majority of Palestinians, I "believe", want a peaceful and prosperous solution that doesn't include expelling Jews from at least a portion of what is now Israel...

I believed the same for many years.

... I think it is clear that Hamas and Palestinians are distinct entities. Hamas want's to wipe out the Israeli's. The Palestinians, it is not clear. 20 years ago I would have said the Palestinians just want peace. That is less clear today, with a majority of Gaza Palestinians being 18 yr old or younger. The Palestinians have become more radical by their situation (younger and being concentration camp detainees) most likely.

[Matnum PI]

... being concentration camp detainees...

Really?...

[jhu72]

... being concentration camp detainees...

Really?...

... what would you call it?

[jhu72]

I'm not posting this podcast to make any personal statement but to promote honest discussion

https://twitter.com/triggerpod/status/1 ... 7432035724

Very interesting opinion. What credibility does she have being a British Jew? Someone correct me here because I never knew that the Romans declared this territory as Palestine to eradicate the memory of the Jewish people. I thought the Palestinians people existed for ions and ions. I need MD lax to tell us he is darn sure her opinion is irrelevant.

... think you mean "eons and eons". Ions are what make the aurora borealis.

[Matnum PI]

... what would you call it?

I don't know. I'm not sure what you're talking about. Do you mean refugee camps? Concentration camps?! Jews are imprisoning Palestinians in concentration camps?! Holy crow...

[Brooklyn]

... what would you call it?

I don't know. I'm not sure what you're talking about. Do you mean refugee camps? Concentration camps?! Jews are imprisoning Palestinians in concentration camps?! Holy crow...

There is just no question that Gaza is worse than anything we saw under Apartheid. The world united in an effort to end that injustice but supported the injustices we see in Gaza today. The article I posted previously discusses that.

[jhu72]

Of course, all of this historical discussion, however valid or invalid, will be inconsequential when Hamas starts executing hostages live on social media as IDF forces begin to insert into Gaza. At that time, we will all likely be treated to video of IDF forces rightfully doing to Hamas what Hamas did on Saturday. None of it will be very pretty.

Buckle up!

Rightfully? To whom? Are all inhabitants of Gaza Hamas? How will guilt and culpability be determined? Will "justice" be an abbreviated military process -- you look like a Hamas operative so we will summarily execute you on sight?

Yeah, going to be some more evidence of why humans are so special, as though we had any doubts.

Going to be a paroxysm of blood-lust revenge. Humans haven't changed much over the years. Justifications and "gods" may change, but basic, crappy behavior, not so much.

... by propaganda aimed at public opinion. Saw an Israeli representative go on for 20 minutes this morning trying to convince Americans that we should be ok with wiping out everyone in Gaza. Looking for US permission.