Home › Blogs › Harl Delos's blog

Gaza and Galveston

30 December 2008 - 11:10am — Harl Delos


How would you feel if the U.N. waltzed in, and set up a new government in the United States?

Let's go even further. There's going to be an immense number of gypsy immigrants. Many of them will be rich, but those who aren't will get good jobs you can't get, and will get citizenship granted almost automatically, while you and others who've lived here for hundreds of years experience homelessness.

Wouldn't you be POed?

Early in the 20th century, there was a proposal to establish a jewish homeland in the American Southwest. No, the zionists said, the Galveston Plan won't do. We want "the promised land" of Palestine.

It's easy to sympathize with the desire of the jews for a homeland. After the holocaust, they wanted a land where they could feel safe. The gypsies suffered worse in the holocaust. The jews have wandered for thousands of years. So have the gypsies. The jews have been subjected to discrimination and abuse, called thieves, set upon, had their property confiscated without cause, been beaten and killed and kicked out of whatever land they were living in. So, too, have the gypsies.

The rhetoric has been inflammatory. We will push Israel into the sea. The jews complain that the nomadic people now called Palestinians do not recognize the right of Israel to exist. But if the UN turned over the US to the gypsies, wouldn't many Americans threaten to push the gypsies into the sea? Wouldn't many assert that the new Gypsy State was illegitimate, and had no right to this land?

Jerusalem is a holy city, not only to Jews, but also holy to Sunni, Shiite, and Christian. Before the modern state of Israel was established, the claim of the Jews on that land is derived from two kings, Solomon and David, who ruled the land for a little over a century between the two of them, thousands of years ago. Since that time, a hundred generations of the nomadic peoples have been born there, lived there, died there, and buried there.

American politicians are asked to pledge unquestioning support for Israel, in order to get elected. That doesn't sound terrible; we've been allies of Israel since it was formed in 1948. On the other hand, we've been allies of Great Britain far longer than that. When they got into a kerfuffle with Argentina over the Falkland Islands, we didn't jump in to help. We didn't issue a policy statement supporting their position. We stood back and watched, laughing in amusement.

For that matter, we don't even ask politicians to pledge unquestioning support for our own country. We certainly didn't rush in when Katrina attacked New Orleans and the surrounding gulf coast. Were we afraid of the political ramifications, if it came out we were pro-American? Did we afraid of entangling alliances if we decried terrorism being committed by hurricane? Heck, it's been 40 years since Newark and Detroit were gutted by riots. We haven't done much to rebuild there, either.

Instead of sending aid to New Orleans or Detroit or Newark, what we did was send aid to mobile home factories, buying bunches of them to sit unoccupied in muddy fields until they deteriorated to the point where it would be dangerous to hook them up to utilities and move homeless people into them. Boy, you gotta love it when pseudo-conservatives run the government, because they root out all the waste and corruption, don't they?

And at this point, it's a little late to tell everyone in Israel, "Oops. We created a god-awful mess here. We want you to evacuate. We're going to set up a jewish homeland in the American southwest for you to live in."

You mean, a reservation, they might ask? Where we might die of ill health and live in squalor and suffer from ignorance, much like you've done with native American tribes? No thanks.

Or do you mean you'd grant us statehood? But wouldn't it be a violation of the US Constitution to allow a state to have an official religiom?

No, that's not going to work. What we could do, though, and what we should do is first to declare that while we have long been friends of Israel, and while we want to continue being friends of Israel, our politicians take an oath to the US Constitution, and we have to put the interests of the US ahead of the interests of our allies.

Second, we should point out that peace in the mideast is important to the US, both from an economic and a military standpoint, and we aren't going to be supportive of actions that threaten peace.

Third, we should point out that the US is constitutionally and temperamentally committed to separation of church and state, and that we consider any state with an official religion, even the Roman Catholic church or the Church of England, to be deficient in human rights.

Fourth, that we have a history of pressing for human rights. We will continue to press ourselves to treat all our citizens and all the guests in our country with greater respect, and we will continue to press other countries to treat all with respect as well.

Barack has said that his girls will have to care for their new dog, and to pick up its manure. Israel needs to care for the people living in and around their country as well.

In the mideast, there are plenty of guilty parties, and none who are innocent. A pledge to always support Israel is not fair to other people in the mideast, and giving the impression that the US always back Israel is not fair to the American people.

Other Bloggers On Related Topics:
- - - - - -

Comments

31 December 2008 - 11:59pm — edward

Israel and human rights

OK, this one might take a while. In short, I see your comments as biased and reflective of faulty reasoning, perhaps based on faulty data. I don't pretend to have all the answers, but based on my own memory and a bit of hasty web-searching:

First, you're setting up an interesting straw man here. (One that was done a couple of years back, see www.dailykos.com/story/2006/9/12/135859/298). The Rom and other "gypsy" people are not a primary area of study of mine. From my limited knowledge, they do not acknowledge a homeland, nor want one. Like the Bedouin, they prefer to remain stateless. The Jews have been mobile by necessity, not choice. There have been many "false messiahs" who tried to lead the Jewish people back to rule in Jerusalem. Mostly, they didn't get very far between Bar-Korhba and modern days. Finally, the Zionists thought of doing this on a strictly secular basis, and between Herzl and Ben-Gurion, succeeded. The Zionists considered, not that Israel was their right, but their necessity, that Jews simply needed a state to achieve full human dignity, and that the area then called Palestine was the best place to achieve this. Michael Lerner likens the situation around the foundation of the state of Israel specifically to the case of a person who, jumping out of a burning building, lands on a pedestrian. On a personal level, one might say, I'm sorry for your back, but I'm not going back in.

If by your straw man, you mean to imply that, as with the gypsies and the US, there is no historic link between Jews and Israel, you're probably referring to the Khazar idea. While I don't dispute that I look a lot more like a Caucasian than a Semite, I can't tell you why. The Jews decided on matrilineal descent, I learned as a child, because they decided against throwing out the babies after the Crusaders passed through. This site, http://www.cohen-levi.org/jewish_genes_and_genealogy/the_dna_chain_of_tr..., notes that the "kohen gene" is present in Ashkenazim as well as mideastern Jews, and that there is no particular overlap with other Turkic peoples. I haven't checked the original papers.

You imply that the ancient state of Israel was limited to the reigns of David and Solomon. That's a straw man in its own right, of course. Past does not give future a perfect unimpeded right. Personally, I'd be in favor of giving title of much US land back to the native tribes, that is, honoring our treaties --but I realize I'm in a distinct minority of US citizens. Canada is trying something along those lines with Nunavit. It's inspiring to know, from a distance. About the duration of ancient Israel: I think you're Christian. Have you ever read Kings, Chronicles, Maccabees? How about the Gospels? In antiquity, there were at least several hundred years, possibly a couple thousand, of Jewish rule in the land, though often as a client of a larger state. These days, many consider Israel a client state of the US. While I think that's not quite accurate, I may be in the minority again.

You imply that there is such a strong support of Israel that a politician must pledge to never "question" the actions of the state of Israel, to get elected. As a Jew, I don't think that's a good idea, let alone as an American! Nor do I think that's the case. One of the few things I liked that GHWBush did was to insist that the Israeli government change settlement and housing policy, and make it stick for a few years --OK, he didn't get reelected, I don't think that's why. One of the few things I don't like about Hilary Clinton was her campaign rhetoric which could be parsed as a knee-jerk "we'll support the Israeli government by nuclear arms if necessary" --not that she actually said those words. Then again, McCain said things similar. Interesting to note that Obama, who retracted a milder form of the same and said it's up to Israel, not the US, if Jerusalem's undivided, was immediately pilloried in the press both for waffling and for not being as strong in support, and yet ended up winning.

You also imply we do not ask our leaders to defend our own country. Rather, I propose, we expect that they will, and vote them out of office when they fail. We do ask our leaders to take an oath to defend the Constitution against all enemies, domestic and foreign. Personally, I think GWBush deliberately did not go out of his way to send aid to Katrina, less out of racism than out of political payback to the strongly Democratic state government of Louisiana. I think that's the "heck of a job" he praised Brownie for. One of several reasons I'd like impeachment proceedings, to be followed by time at the Hague as findings indicate.

You imply that Israel has an "official religion". It does not. It has freedom _of_ religion to a greater extent than most countries. It does indeed have preferential treatment of Jews, by a civil definition that differs from that of its religious leaders, in matters of immigration. Unofficially, there is discrimination in housing and freedom of movement, and human rights violations going back before the massacres of the '48 War, against some of its Arab citizens, Muslim and Christian alike, who have gone from being fellahin under the Ottomans to being full citizens of Israel. I don't like that discrimination, those deaths. I also don't like that Israeli Jews have been under attack, often deadly, from a segment of the area's Arab population, starting decades before independence, in a manner somewhat different from the usual Jew-hating activities in most of the Middle East and Europe, because it was and is directed against the Jews daring to live in their land again and seek political power, which wasn't usually an issue in the rest of the Middle East and Europe. I also don't like that many former fellahin non-citizens, now nationalizing as Palestinians, were conquered in '67 and have yet to be reabsorbed by Jordan and Egypt, whose nominal citizens they were --only their states didn't want them. These Palestinians have been treated horribly by Jordan and Egypt, and somewhat less so by Israel, which is trying to grant land and statehood in return for guarantees of peace. And getting complete disbelief in return. It's a horrid mess. The best I can say about it is that it's far better than the way we continue to treat our conquered indigenes, a point on which we seem to be in agreement. This is part of why Nunavit is such a hopeful development for my worldview: how much might the world learn from a modern state granting actual territorial rights, with few economic strings, to a conquered indigenous population?

You imply we've been putting the well-being of Israel ahead of our own. I disagree, cf. Jonathan Pollard, AWACS to Saudi Arabia, Iran-Contra --while I disagree with the latter two decisions, they were made in the then-current (Reagan, in those cases) administrations' notion of the best interests of the United States, and against those of Israel. And, more recently, the US has again agreed to sell more modern arms systems to Israel's neighbors than Israel is comfortable with, in line with our current administration's notion of the best interests of the United States, another decision I disagree with, but I haven't put nor found myself in a position to influence the administration.

When you speak of "our allies", do you mean Jordan and Egypt, as well as Israel? Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the UAE? We've given pledges to support _all_ of those, and the one we've gone to war over was Kuwait. Who was it who noted that the last four times we've committed major levels of force outside the Americas, it's been nominally for Muslims? (Kuwaitis, Bosnians, Somalis, Iraqis).

This is a terribly scattered response, but I was moved to respond particularly to what I viewed as libels, and I haven't met someone who I believe can solve the situation yet. My impression is that Israel is trying to endure, because it refuses to cease to exist and sees that as the alternative to the status quo. It's trying to offer peace, while not allowing its terrorists to find shelter. Again, I might prefer the IDF do more house-to-house work, take more casualties, and only kill those it's sure are combatants, rather than bomb from above and kill children, but then I'd say the same for US troops, and in both cases, I think I'm in the distinct minority. I also didn't volunteer, for either service, even before my health started to deteriorate and I got a family. Now, I'm trying to learn more about nonviolent communication (cnvc.org) and "protective force". I hope everyone does the same, and yes, I think of Israel and the US first in that "everyone", and the terrorists later. I too have stopped thinking of the Hamas and Fatah and Hizbollah, and their sponsors and funders, as anything other than "people determined to kill Jews", which isn't useful for this purpose.

Happy New Year, CE.

1 January 2009 - 9:27am — Harl Delos

Nice response

This is a terribly scattered response

Yes, you covered a lot of territory, but you did very well.

I wasn't proposing a nation for the Romany. I was pointing out that we would be terribly angry and prone to violence if someone snatched our sovereignty away from us.

I haven't heard any rational argument that "the area then called Palestine was the best place", only emotional arguments - and in terms of emotion, saying "this was our homeland for 140 years or so, a few millenia ago" is a whole lot less convincing than "this has been our homeland for the last 100 generations".

One of the few things I don't like about Hilary Clinton was her campaign rhetoric which could be parsed as a knee-jerk "we'll support the Israeli government by nuclear arms if necessary" --not that she actually said those words. Then again, McCain said things similar. Interesting to note that Obama, who retracted a milder form of the same and said it's up to Israel, not the US, if Jerusalem's undivided, was immediately pilloried in the press both for waffling and for not being as strong in support

Yes. And he told AIPAC that he would do "everything" -- "and I mean everything" to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. I presume that includes a pre-emptive nuclear strike. Is there a country you trust less with a nuclear weapon than North Korea? And yet, I didn't hear public support for the notion of nuking North Korea even though the war against North Korea never officially ended; there was only a cease-fire signed, not a treaty.

You imply that Israel has an "official religion". It does not.

In theory, you're right. "The difference between theory and practice is that in theory, there is no difference, but in practice, there is."

More than 90% of the land in Israel is owned by the government. It isn't sold, only leased, and non-jews aren't allowed to lease.

Marriage would seem to be fundamental civil right. The only marriages permitted in Israel is Orthodox Jewish marriage. If you want a Christian, Muslim, Reform, Conservative, or secular ceremony, you have to go abroad for that.

There's considerable discrimination by the government in education, housing, and employment against non-jews.

The government funds construction of new Orthodox synogogues, but not mosques. In fact, it's hard to even get a building permit for a mosque.

And there are laws limiting proselytization in Israel.

Who was it who noted that the last four times we've committed major levels of force outside the Americas, it's been nominally for Muslims? (Kuwaitis, Bosnians, Somalis, Iraqis).

I don't know, but he is spinning the facts. In the Kuwait and Iraq incidents, we were opposed by Saddam Hussein, a Sunni Muslim In Somalia, we were opposed by Al Qaeda, a Sunni Muslim organization, who blew up our embassy. There was civil unrest in Bosnia, with no clearcut enemy, but that country is only 40% Muslim.

I haven't met someone who I believe can solve the situation yet.

We can start by acknowledging that the Bedouin have a legitimate grievance. Israel should never have been created there without their consent. Then we point out that it's too late to unscramble that egg, that it's doing no good for Israel's neighbors to keep harping on the past, and we need to concentrate on the present and the future.

It's not unreasonable for us to lean on Israel to clean up their act. It's quite understandable that they want a country where they can feel safe, but it wasn't Palestinians who were responsible for the Holocaust, it was Germans and Poles. They need to respect all people, and grant them equal protection of the law, regardless of their religion.

There are wars that start over economic issues, and it's hard to prevent them, but the fighting in the mideast is mostly about respect, and that's not acceptable.

It appears to me that this latest dust-up was something that Israel provoked. That's not acceptable, either. Both sides need to show a commitment to religious freedom, respect for each other, and some restraint if we are ever to have peace there.

When I was single, decades ago, I had a girlfriend for a while who had worked on a kibbutz, during the six-days war. She had, as you might imagine, very strong feelings on the issue; fearing for your life and those of your friends will do that to you.

Your response has been considerably more thoughtful. Please feel free to continue this discussion; I'm willing to be convinced.

7 January 2009 - 11:05pm — edward

More of the same

Yes, the reason Israel is the Jewish homeland is emotional, not rational. Do you have rational explanations for nationalism? That emotional tie to the land of Zion, and some sections of Jewish holy writ, is why many Jews who could tried their hardest to stay an independent state when the Romans took over, rebelled against the Romans, tried to stay in Judea and Samaria, then in what was renamed Palestine, and had to be massacred out of Jerusalem itself. And the next generation, there they were back again. For the next roughly 1500 years, Jews were not allowed a significant presence in Judea. Jews who were rich enough, however, tried to buy their way to retire and die and be buried in their holy land. A religious colony was allowed to exist in Safed... for a while at a time. The Crusaders burned the Jews out of Jerusalem again, but again, when the Crusaders left, the Jews returned, in small numbers, as the Caliph allowed.

In the late 1800s, the Ottomans started to allow Jews to return younger, and in greater numbers. The industrial revolution in Europe had given rise to incredible riches, and a bourgeoisie, and that population to a romantic movement which encouraged its youth to dream, and to act on those dreams, with plenty of ready cash. Enough cash to buy settlement rights from the Ottomans for Jews from Europe to return to Israel in considerable numbers. The Ottomans had no concern in particular for the fellahin already there. These were the people who would, over the next century, organize as Palestinian nationalists --but then, they were officially landless tenant farmers of the Ottomans, is my understanding, similar to the Russian serfs in legal status, though not so poor. They lived better, with the climate not so harsh. Malaria, yes, and desert heat, but rarely snow.

The Jews took their cue from the Ottoman rulers, and while most Jews wanted to live in peace alongside the resident Arabs, and most of the Arabs appreciated the cash the Jews brought to the local economy, there began to be some worries among the fellahin that these new people were getting too populous, starting to want to change things around. The fellahin may have been near-serfs, but they had, as you say, been there for many generations. They may well have started to nationalize largely in response to the Jewish presence there.

Back to your comments: you are clarifying your error of the amount of time a Jewish state stood in ancient Israel. Again, have you ever looked at the record? The books of Kings record some 500 years of Jewish kings before the Babylonian Exile, and then after the Exile, the Second Temple stood for another nearly 600 years.

Again, the past does not determine the future. I do wonder, however, why you persist in stating that the Jewish Kingdom was limited to the time of David and Solomon. That also bears on your "a few millenia ago", as it was less than 2000 years, despite the popular slogan, between 70 and 1948.

I don't like the Korea policy, either. I'd also like it if Bush hadn't looked the other way and allowed them to acquire nukes. That doesn't mean I want the ayatollah to have them, too. The government of Iran is building missiles capable of reaching NATO members' territory, too, not just Israel, and it refers to Israel as "The Little Satan" but the West as a whole as "The Big Satan".

Land policy: I quote from http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_israel_land.php:
----------------------------------------------
Of the total land in Israel in 1997, the Israel Government Press Office statistics say 79.5% is owned by the government, 14% is privately owned by the JNF, and the rest, around 6.5%, is evenly divided between private Arab and Jewish owners. Thus, the ILA administers 93.5% of the land in Israel.[...] The statement that "Arabs cannot buy land in Israel" is largely true, but meaningless since Jews cannot buy land either, bound by the same ILA restrictions. In actual practice, ILA lands are leased and both Arab and Jewish citizens of Israel have equal access. Some classes of Arab citizens, e.g. Bedouins, have been the beneficiaries of highly subsidized land programs in Israel, so beneficial that Jews have gone to court to try to get the same terms. Affirmative action programs for Bedouins have been upheld by Jewish courts to the detriment of Jewish citizens.[...] In practice, however, JNF land has been leased to Arab citizens of Israel, both for short-term and long-term use such as leases on a yearly basis to Bedouins for use as pasture. In other cases, JNF land has been traded for other, unrestricted, land so it can be leased to Arabs.[...] here are no restrictions on private land transfers in Israel. Private land can be purchased or leasaed by Israeli Arabs or by non-citizens. Such land can be, and has been, purchased by Israeli Arabs and by foreigners, including Arab foreigners. [...] The relatively unrestricted access to land in Israel is in sharp contrast with Arab policies. During the 1948-1967 Jordanian occupation of Judea and Samaria (the West Bank), for example, Jews were forbidden to live there under pain of death. In 1973, under the direct instructions of King Hussein, the government of Jordan passed the Law for Preventing the Sale of Immoveable Property to the Enemy. The "enemy" defined in Article 2 as:

* ... any man or judicial body [corporation] of Israeli citizenship living in Israel or acting on its behalf.

This law, or equivalent, continued in effect under the Palestinian Authority (PA). By 1997, 172 people had been sentenced to death under this law, although "only" about 10 have been executed. The law is invalid under the Oslo II agreement and is one of the many violations of the Oslo peace process agreements by the PA. Palestinian land dealers in PA controlled areas have been murdered as "collaborators", a practice that was publically condoned by Yasser Arafat.

In 1995, following the peace treaty between Israel and Jordan, the Jordanian Parliament repealed the 1973 law and replaced it with milder statutes that still effectively bar Israelis from purchasing or leasing land in Jordan.
-----------------------------

That is "hazbarah", propaganda. It tells the best side of things, neglecting the discrimination and destruction. It also happens to be true, as far as it goes. Which is quite a bit further than I knew, actually. Particularly that about 10 executions of Palestinians for allowing Jews to buy land in the Occupied Territories. Interesting policy, that.

About marriage, your words are untrue, but it is a very sad situation. Jews are only allowed to marry in Orthodox ceremony, but some other religions are allowed their own officiants. I quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_in_Israel:
------------------------
Marriages in Israel are performed under the auspices of the religious authority of the religious community to which couples belong. The system is based on the Millet or confessional community system inherited from the times of the Ottoman Empire and not substantially modified during the British Mandate period nor since the establishment of the State of Israel. The system is also in use by several Muslim countries of the Middle East and beyond.[...]The High Commissioner established the Orthodox Rabbinate and retained a modified Millet system which only recognized eleven religious communities: Muslims, Jews and nine Christian denominations (none of which were Christian Protestant churches)[...]There are nine officially recognised churches for the purposes of marriage. These are the Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic (Latin rite), Gregorian-Armenian, Armenian Catholic, Syrian Catholic, Chaldean (Uniate), Melkite (Greek Catholic), Maronite and Syrian Orthodox churches.[...]There are more informal arrangements with other Christian churches, such as the Anglican Church.[...]The Druze community was recognized as a separate community from the Muslim community in 1957. In 1962, separate Druze courts were established to deal with personal status issues in the Druze community, alongside the rabbinical courts, the Sharia courts, and the courts of the Christian communities.
-----------------------
Yes, this does leave many people out, including "mixed", nonreligious, and members of unrecognized sects. While a mail-order marriage from Paraguay (I kid you not) is available, it's hardly the ideal from my point of view. I want civil marriage in Israel... and in the other countries in the Mideast and elsewhere where that is not an option. I'm also not an Israeli, or a citizen of any of those other countries. I am, thanks be, an American.

There is indeed discrimination against non-Jews, and I have already stated my unhappiness with that fact. I reiterate it. I dislike discrimination based on gender, gender expression, sexual orientation, creed, color, and income level, anywhere. Have I left anything out? Probably. It's late, I'm days late replying, and I've neglected reading to my 5-year-old to get this much done.

There are indeed laws limiting proselytizing in Israel. To give some context, I quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proselytization:
------------------
Some countries such as Greece prohibit all proselytism, some such as Morocco prohibit it except for a particular religion. Some restrict it in various ways such as prohibiting attempts to convert children or prohibit offering physical benefits to new converts.
---------------------------
That last is the case in Israel, it is illegal to offer financial inducement to convert. That is the only legal limit of which I am aware. Given that it was a death sentence not only for the convert and the rabbis who conducted the conversion, but often for the entire Jewish community, to convert to Judaism, in Europe and the Mideast, for much of the last 1800 years, and that this is currently the case in much of the Mideast, Jews in Israel do tend to look with disfavor, occasionally crossing the line to violence, upon people who proselytize to Jews, whether from outside or inside Judaism. Please see for more information, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_Israel, subsection 8.1, Proselytizing.

The Bedouin are not the Palestinians. Separate people. The Bedouin were, and some still are, nomads throughout the Mideast. There has been a mixed-results Israeli policy of "encouraging" them to settle in concrete blocks with modern conveniences, subject to demolition as political tides turn. Please see for more information, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negev_Bedouin and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedouin.

As for wars over respect not being acceptable, the American Revolution was in many ways a war over respect. That, and control of resources, a major issue in Israel as well. Water is at least as potent an issue in the Mideast, as elsewhere. That and religious freedom, taxation without representation, desiring a representative democratic republic, ...shall I go on? The issues are those of Israel as well. There are many parallels between Israel and the USA, which is perhaps why the US has been a firm ally of Israel since its founding, and why Truman was so well-disposed to the Jewish side of the issue from the time he took office, when the regional area was under Anglo-French rule, and then when the British Mandate in Palestine was handed over to the UN.

The current "dust-up" is Israel's reaction to Hamas launching rockets from Gaza during a ceasefire. Israel waited until the ceasefire had expired, issued another call for a real ceasefire this time, and a few more warnings, and then began operations to stop the rockets.

It may not work, either: a week and more in, the rockets are still firing. Israel is taking out Hamas leaders, but creating more people who hate Israel personally for killing their families. Hamas has no incentive to stop, they grow with every civilian casualty. Israel doesn't feel it can stop until its citizens are safe from rocket attacks, at least for a while.

The situation is analogous to the way the American settlers felt when Indian raiders hit. The Israelis are trying to do better than what our predecessors on this continent did, which was to burn out the nearest Indian settlements in misdirected retaliation. They are hitting where they know the rockets came from, and the people they know directed the fire. These are sites in populated areas, where children live.

American troops in Afghanistan and Iraq are trying to do the same things. Not having as good intelligence, our own troops are creating considerably more civilian casualties than the Israelis are.

If Israel simply stops operations, the government of Israel appears convinced that Hamas will continue to fire rockets and otherwise kill Israeli civilians. Same as the American troops are sure they need to keep trying to kill the local indigenous resistances where they are. Knowing even as little as I do of how those resistances operate, I can blame neither the Israeli or American forces for their certainties, their determination to not let these forces rule. If the indigenous resistances take over, to go by what has been the case in history, the result will be immediately horrible, and only over generations improve back towards civility. "The arc of history is long, but it bends toward justice" -The Dr. Rev. MLKJr. That is little comfort to those caught in the backlash.

The government of Israel is trying to survive, and keep its citizens alive. Historically, what has been done by governments in these circumstances has been "ethnic cleansing", or outright genocide, as in US history. Israel is avoiding, for the most part!, "ethnic cleansing", and has a... historic aversion... to genocide. It is trying to do something new. This "dust-up" is in support of trying to do something new. Not entirely new... The US, after 50 years of rebellion, gave independence to the Philippenes. The Palestinians are over 40 years in to rebellion against an occupying power. Israel started out believing the fellahin would be treated as citizens by Jordan and Egypt, and so either be absorbed by them under partition, or become Israeli citizens. When the Palestinians did not want to become Israelis, and Jordan and Egypt refused to accept them, it took decades for Israel's leadership to accept those facts and start to think about a further partition of an already small state. The Philippenes are thousands of miles away from the US. Israel is already surrounded by Arab states, and most Israelis are not anxious to share borders with another Muslim state... but if it will bring peace, they are willing. Right now, they are not getting any responses to offers for peace.

I cannot stand the idea of killing children. I want a different solution. Educating our children in nonviolent communication techniques is the best thing I can think of, to help in years to come. It doesn't help now.

Good night.

8 January 2009 - 4:44pm — Harl Delos

Or not.

Yes, the reason Israel is the Jewish homeland is emotional, not rational. Do you have rational explanations for nationalism?

Nationalism is "love of country" - but in this case, it's love of someone else's country. Abraham assembled the survivors of many conquered people together to form the Hebrew people, not in Israel, but in Mesopotamia - today's Iraq.

When cultures come in contact with each other, they learn from each other, and there is great increase in learning. The Hebrew people figured out how to do accounting - and the Egyptians were in sore need of accountants, so the Hebrew left Mesopotamia and went to Egypt, where they found work. Things didn't work out well, the Egyptians thinking the Hebrews ought to be happy to be slaves, and the Hebrews deciding that they'd had enough, so they wandered around in the desert for years, until they glommed onto Israel.

Not their land, but land they took. As happened in the 1940s, with the consent of the British and the UN, but not with the consent of the people who lived there.

In the late 1800s, the Ottomans started to allow Jews to return younger, and in greater numbers.

But in 1918, when Britain took over Palestine, they did a census. The Jews were only 11% of the population.

500 years of Jewish Kings? Yes, there were kings - but the land they ruled over was Judah, not Israel.

David ruled Judah for 7 years, and then brought Israel under his rule as well, for 33 years. Solomon reigned over both for 40 years as well. This was from 1010 BC to 931 BC or from 1000 BC to 922 BC, depending on which historian you believe; in any case about 3 millenia ago. Solomon's son Rehoboam ruled the kingdom of Judah, but lost the kingdom of Israel to Jeroboam, who undercut Judaism by naming common people to the priesthood, instead of Levitic priests.

The second temple? It was built while the land was ruled by Persia - king Darius I, to be specific.

70 to 1948? Uh, there wasn't any change in rule of the country in 70 AD. The Jewish revolt ran from 66 AD to 73 AD, with the revolt losing heart when the second temple destroyed in 70 AD, but the Roman Empire, which had been ruling Palestine from 63 BC, remained in control. When the Roman Empire split in two in 395 AD, the eastern half, the Byzantine Empire, retained control, and they didn't lose Palestine until 638 AD.

The law is invalid under the Oslo II agreement Except that, if it is as described, it isn't. The agreement is >here for your inspection

The Bedouin are not the Palestinians. The Negev Bedouin have been living in Palestine for 7,000 years. At what point are you willing to consider them Palestinians?

The argument that nomads have no claim on their lands is pretty much the argument used to justify stealing this continent from its owners. If you build a house of wood, you're low-class, if you build a house of brick, you're respected gentry, and if you live in a tent, well, the only good Indian is a dead Indian.

That "the only good Indian is a dead Indian" quote, by the way, apparently originated with William Hendricks, Governor of Indiana from 1822 to 1825. He happens to be kin of mine. Our family, however, is quick to point out that as Governor, he was the first man in the US to execute a white man for killing an Indian, so apparently he decided, later in life, that Indians were worthy of a little respect. Respect goes a long way in resolving conflict.

The situation is analogous to the way the American settlers felt when Indian raiders hit. Yes. In more ways than one. The American Indians couldn't just leave the American settlers alone and go home, because they were already there. because the American settlers were invading their home; ditto for the Palestinians.

I've neglected reading to my 5-year-old to get this much done. Unacceptable, and I apologize. Nothing should ever come between a parent, a 5-year-old and a book.

9 January 2009 - 2:23pm — edward

Winding down?

I think I'm getting close to done. Knowing that Israeli troops fired on UN humanitarian convoys sickens me further, and I am reluctant to do much that smacks of defending a government which will allow this without publicly sanctioning (negatively, I mean) the ground commanders who authorized those particular attacks. I know the concept of a free-fire zone, I know commanders on the ground are responsible for their troops' lives, and that that tends to produce a response of 'shoot first' once one is declared. I also know that Israel's constitution requires soldiers to disobey orders they feel are in violation of decency, so one might say the soldiers who fired were responsible, too. I know that other nations have done the same and worse, including our own, recently and perhaps will again soon. The Talmud's question, "Is your blood redder?" still rises here to me.

You have an interesting view of the history of the Jewish people. Not one I've seen before, but perhaps as plausible as any, May I ask where it came from?

Again, past does not dictate future. In the long picture, we're probably most of us humans from somewhere else by now; I doubt many first evolved/ first settlers are presently in place. (I'm willing to listen to arguments regarding various kinds of Bushmen and various islands. I haven't read about clear evidence of evictions of predecessors in all parts of the Americas, either.) However, how many hundreds of years does it take for you to say people aren't native, either? Do you take the views of, say, Germany, where 3rd-generation Turkish "guest workers" are still not German? Of America, where if you're born here, you belong? Somewhere in between?

I should perhaps have specified I was speaking of Jewish local rule in place, and that it is likely from both texts and observations of human development that the Temple was likely built only after generations of Jewish rule in the land. Yes, Judah was the name of the southern kingdom after the split, the northern kingdom was the one called Israel, and it ended before the southern one by a bit over a hundred years before the Exile.

Jewish rule within the land, even as a kingdom under an empire, ended with the destruction of the Temple, as I was taught. Then the Romans ruled, including the beginning of edicts forbidding Jewish proselytizing under Constantine about 350 CE.

As for your disagreement with my source about the applicability of Oslo to a law, I see some points in your reference that may be interpretable towards your position, though nothing specifically addressing it, again, that I noticed. I may be slow here. I don't particularly need you to quote and then interpret from the quotation, though, to understand that to you, and I assume to many people, that law is still valid. I still think it's an awful law, regardless, and I'm a bit surprised that you put yourself in a position of apparently defending it. Then again, I've put myself in a position of apparently defending a government which is firing on UN humanitarian convoys, see above for my opinions on that.

The Bedouin roam a much larger area than the boundaries of Israel. Even the Negev Bedouin do not generally consider themselves Palestinian, as I understand. Please see the Wikipedia entry cited previously, as well as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinians, subsection 3.4. It's like calling a Navajo a Hopi. They may live near eachother, and both be indigenous to the area compared to the recent conquerors, but they aren't the same people to themselves.

Did I claim nomads have no claim to their lands??

Many of Israel's founders also moderated their tone towards the Palestinians over their lives, perhaps most notably Rabin. In the second generation of Israelis, Sharon appears to have been most notable in going from an implacable foe to one willing to trade land and recognition for peace.

Please don't feel a need to apologize; you didn't cause me to not read to my son last night. I did it on my own, because I was tired of not replying.

Good day.

10 January 2009 - 12:56am — Harl Delos

Yes.

You have an interesting view of the history of the Jewish people. Not one I've seen before, but perhaps as plausible as any, May I ask where it came from?

I'm a skeptic, not of any one thing, but of everything. I tend to root though the attics and basements of libraries, searching for books that are unpopular, and compare what they have to say with the popular versions. History books, of course, need to be pretty much another rewriting of what the previous generation of history books said, because otherwise, history teachers think they are wrong, and won't use them to teach from.

I consider other writing which isn't labeled as history, per se, as well. Archaeological digs, for instance, tell us much that isn't found in history books. Literature, such as Gilgamesh, provides more clues. There are many ancient and sacred writings that did not make it into the Jewish bible or the New Testament. The way a language is used tells us a lot about the culture in which it was used, so linguistics studies are evidence. The dead sea scrolls are too old - the newest date to about 66 AD - to include books of the New Testament, but they contain much that upsets the applecart of fundamentalist Christians, which is probably why the Rockefeller folks kept them secret for so long.

Literature was not divided into fiction and nonfiction until recently, historically speaking, and so they have to be taken with a grain of salt, or perhaps even a bushel. I'm not so sure there is a good dividing line. Fiction is mostly disguised autobiography, and it's impossible to write even one sentence that's truly nonfiction. "That barn is red". Except that what you really mean is more like "That appears to be a barn to me, and the side of that barn facing me, at this time and in this light, appears to be some shade of red."

I wasn't saying that was a good law; I was saying that Oslo II didn't prohibit the law. Oslo II doesn't prohibit drunk driving, or eating moldy bread, either, and I'm against both of those as well.

I've put myself in a position of apparently defending a government which is firing on UN humanitarian convoys

If you insist on being consistent, you're going to have a hard life. I really loved my first wife, but she was a smoker. I really like my minivan, but it's incredibly difficult to clean the inside of the windshield. Outside of thee and me, perfection is a rare thing.

And the issues are complex. I am anti-war. When I was of draft age, I went before the draft board and said that I conscientiously objected to all wars, and to all use of lethal military force - and yet I just commented favorably on the act of a young Air Force sniper. That doesn't feel right to me, and yet, I believe that those who put themselves in harm's way, for the benefit of others, are performing an honorable task. I'm conflicted.

Many of Israel's founders also moderated their tone towards the Palestinians over their lives, perhaps most notably Rabin.

And vice-versa. It's sorta like black/white relations in this country. Each generation is less racist than the one before, and integration has sped up the process.

My point in the original post was that we did something stupid in the 1940s, and we're paying the price now, all of us. Our country is based on the principle that government is by the consent of the governed, though, and we need to keep that in mind, both in governing ourselves, and in influencing how others govern themselves. Whether or not one likes the text of the ERA, we need to have equal rights for women. We need equal rights for gays. We need to press Germany to extend equal rights to Turkish immigrants, and we need to press the countries of the Mideast to grant their residents equal rights regardless of ethnicity, religion, etc.

And it sounds like you're in favor of equal rights for all, as well.

Give your kid a hug on my behalf.