Palestinians vs. Tibetans

[jbg]

Why is it OK for China to continue a brutal occupation they started in 1959, against harmless Tibetans, while Israel is pressured almost daily to return to highly dangerous 1967 borders?

Maybe I'm dense.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear jbg,

Why is it OK for China to continue a brutal occupation they started in 1959, against harmless Tibetans, while Israel is pressured almost daily to return to highly dangerous 1967 borders?

Maybe I'm dense.

I don't consider you dense, but there are several factors that make the two somewhat different. I disagree with the 'West' for not taking issue with China over Tibet, but sadly it is all about the money. "#1 trading partner", and other mantras, keeps China relatively free from criticism. Huge multinationals, many based in North America, depend on China (and it's cheap labour) for huge profits. Were it the same for Israel (or for Palestine, for that matter), I would expect the same result. The support for Tibet has pretty much died, except for the occasional 'Free Tibet' bumper sticker on some 'hippie-mobiles'. (Note: I have never seen a 'Free Palestine' sticker on anything)

As to the middle east, at least for me, it is a dispute between two religions that I do not agree with, nor do either agree with me.

[jbg]

The support for Tibet has pretty much died, except for the occasional 'Free Tibet' bumper sticker on some 'hippie-mobiles'. (Note: I have never seen a 'Free Palestine' sticker on anything)

China snatched Tibet, I believe, in 1959. Even then there was little more than words, and that was before China was used as a free-labor swamp.

As to the middle east, at least for me, it is a dispute between two religions that I do not agree with, nor do either agree with me.

Back in the 1970's and 1980's, the demand was for the creation of a "secular democratic state" in place of Israel. That, I believe, was code for "people's democratic republic" or the like, the model of which would have been the "Ba'ath Socialist Republics". Islam too over as the justification of the day only with the intellectual and governmental collapse of Communism. Both are primarily excuses to get Israel out of the way.

My point about Tibet is several-fold:

1. They are indisputably an indigenous and separate people from the conquering Chinese;
   
2. They have never posed a threat, military or otherwise, to the People's Republic of China ("PRC");
   
3. They have never fomented guerrilla (sp) or terrorist movements aimed at China or the world;
   
4. The takeover of Tibet was unprovoked; and
   
5. China's suspension of liberties in Tibet, particularly the practice of the native Buddhism was immediate (Israel's restrictions were only imposed in response to continuing military activity.
   

.

What I resent is the obvious hypocrisy of the UN's perseverative focus on Israel, a Western outpost, and no focus on Tibet. The same could be said for the struggle of Sudanese Christians, the Christians of East Timor, etc.

[jdobbin]

What I resent is the obvious hypocrisy of the UN's perseverative focus on Israel, a Western outpost, and no focus on Tibet. The same could be said for the struggle of Sudanese Christians, the Christians of East Timor, etc.

Perhaps if Israel had a permanent membership like China, they could act like China with no consequences.

Why don't pro-Israel supporters in the U.S. push Bush to withdraw from the U.N.?

[Rue]

Tibet has no oil.

[jdobbin]

Tibet has no oil.

Tibet does have oil.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/1502117.stm

[Higgly]

What I resent is the obvious hypocrisy of the UN's perseverative focus on Israel, a Western outpost, and no focus on Tibet. The same could be said for the struggle of Sudanese Christians, the Christians of East Timor, etc.

I agree that more attention needs to be focussed on Tibet and the Sudan, but nobody is going to start arming nukes over them. The Middle East, on the other hand...

And this has to be said. We have a nation of people (Israel) that has suffered tremendously and is carrying out an illegal process of ethnic cleansing to its own advantage. If the Israelis have suffered so much, how can they inflict the same fate on someone else?

Is it really so important to take Judea and Sumeria? Israel is not looking too good here....

[jbg]

I agree that more attention needs to be focussed on Tibet and the Sudan, but nobody is going to start arming nukes over them. The Middle East, on the other hand...

Congratulations for conceding that "more attention should be paid". Should the number of UN resolutions be proportional to the size of the respective disputed areas?

And this has to be said. We have a nation of people (Israel) that has suffered tremendously and is carrying out an illegal process of ethnic cleansing to its own advantage. If the Israelis have suffered so much, how can they inflict the same fate on someone else?

Is it really so important to take Judea and Sumeria? Israel is not looking too good here....

Israel didn't seize the West Bank until Jordan used that site to start an aggressive war against Israel. Then, suddenly the people stopped being Jordanians and became Palestinians? (link)

[WestViking]

What I resent is the obvious hypocrisy of the UN's perseverative focus on Israel, a Western outpost, and no focus on Tibet. The same could be said for the struggle of Sudanese Christians, the Christians of East Timor, etc.

I agree that more attention needs to be focussed on Tibet and the Sudan, but nobody is going to start arming nukes over them. The Middle East, on the other hand...

And this has to be said. We have a nation of people (Israel) that has suffered tremendously and is carrying out an illegal process of ethnic cleansing to its own advantage. If the Israelis have suffered so much, how can they inflict the same fate on someone else?

Is it really so important to take Judea and Sumeria? Israel is not looking too good here....

Your grasp of Middle East history is pathetic.

At the end of world war one (WW-I), the British were given control over a huge tract of North Africa.

During World war two (WW-II) British diplomats screwed up properly, promising roughly the same areas of their 'protectorate' 1) to Arab tribes in return for support in fighting against the Axis; and 2) to the Jews who had been butchered by the same Axis due to British wrongheaded policies of appeasement. Bluntly, they were paling both ends against the middle to save their own asses.

When WW-II ended with the Axis broken, the Brits were caught in a diplomatic disaster and dumped the problem on the newly minted United Nations. The UN turned out to be far more inept than the Brits. The UN drew up plans for independent Jewish and Arab states, The Jews said OK and the Arabs responded with a middle finger salute.

Fast forward to today. Following five unsuccessful Arab led wars to destroy Israel; the Arabs have resorted to ongoing violent harassment.

North Africa, commonly refereed to as the Middle East is plagued by Tribal feudalism. Anyone not belonging to my Tribe is an enemy to be destroyed on sight. This rule is somewhat modified by a codicil that provides that Tribes may call a truce to commonly fight any outsider; however whenever the outsider shows any sign of weakness, the Tribal wars resume.

You get the news daily. Afghanistan and Iraq Tribes would prefer to kill off one anther then to fight coalition forces. Given the opportunity of freedom from outside forces, rather than forming an inclusive democracy, they use the opportunity to dredge up centuries-old grievances as an excuse to murder their neighbours.

Ultimately, Israel is no more and no less than an excuse for temporary and meaningless excuses for truces to fight a common enemy until they can return to settle Tribal conflicts. Without Tribal chiefs who have amassed sufficient money and arms to act as brutal dictators, the Middle East would collapse into anarchy in a heartbeat. Bluntly put, without some outside influence, these savages would rather quickly annihilate one another.

If free world nations have to withdraw from the Middle East, they have to cordon off the area and allow no one in or out. In less than a decade, the Arabs will sue for peace and ask free world nation to settle Arab differences under the laws they currently shun and despise.

[August1991]

Tibet has no oil.

Neither does Israel.

There are about 600,000 Muslims now in Canada. That's about what the Jewish population was in Palestine/Israel in 1948. Link. (Incidentally, about that many Jews left Arab countries after 1950. Link.)

People move around. Governments change.

As Argus and MikeDavid often remind us, Toronto is not the same city it was in 1960.

The UN (and UNRWA specifically), with the connivance of surrounding Arab states (Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon and Syria), has created this fictional world of dependance - like our Indian Act, but far worse.

Imagine if the UN told Argus and MikeDavid that they will get their Canada back again - exactly as it appears in Toronto Star photos in 1950. (Gawd, Argus and MikeDavid might be gullible and stupid enough to believe such UN promises.)

[jdobbin]

Tibet has no oil.

Neither does Israel.

As I have pointed out once before, Tibet has lots and lots of oil.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/1502117.stm

[Black Dog]

Your grasp of Middle East history is pathetic.

In light of the various historical oopsies you make subsequent to this statement, I think this falls into the category of Morisettian irony.

At the end of world war one (WW-I), the British were given control over a huge tract of North Africa.

1) The Palestine Mandate is not part of North Africa.

2) The only British colonial posession in North Africa post WW1 was Egypt.

During World war two (WW-II) British diplomats screwed up properly, promising roughly the same areas of their 'protectorate' 1) to Arab tribes in return for support in fighting against the Axis; and 2) to the Jews who had been butchered by the same Axis due to British wrongheaded policies of appeasement. Bluntly, they were paling both ends against the middle to save their own asses.

Right events, wrong era. This all happened during the First World War.

North Africa, commonly refereed to as the Middle East is plagued by Tribal feudalism.

Again: not North Africa, but Western Asia.

You get the news daily. Afghanistan and Iraq Tribes would prefer to kill off one anther then to fight coalition forces. Given the opportunity of freedom from outside forces, rather than forming an inclusive democracy, they use the opportunity to dredge up centuries-old grievances as an excuse to murder their neighbours.

The volently enforced Sunni dominance of Sadddam's regime is a centuries old grievance? This also begs the question of why, if the people there are such unrepentant savages, the U.S. decided to intervene in the first place.

(It's also worth pointing out that Iraq was one of the best educated nations in the region prior to 1991.)

If free world nations have to withdraw from the Middle East, they have to cordon off the area and allow no one in or out. In less than a decade, the Arabs will sue for peace and ask free world nation to settle Arab differences under the laws they currently shun and despise.

Not all Middle Eastern peoples are Arabs.

All of this idiocy, unintentionallly, I'm sure, does betray a vital truth. Westerners tend to approach the problems of other nations with Western assumptions ogf behaviour and view events through a Western lens. When confronted with events that make little sense to our western minds, it's easy to lapse into 17th Century mindset, as the poster above demonstrates.

[Charles Anthony]

falls into the category of Morisettian irony.

Is there a little pill for that?

[Black Dog]

Is there a little pill for that?

You oughta know.

[Charles Anthony]

I guess so. I am supposed to be a former junkie.

[geoffrey]

As I have pointed out once before, Tibet has lots and lots of oil.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/1502117.stm

Most places have oil or gas... it mostly comes down to economics. And from that, it doesn't seem like Tibet really has oil that can be extracted reasonably.

[jdobbin]

Most places have oil or gas... it mostly comes down to economics. And from that, it doesn't seem like Tibet really has oil that can be extracted reasonably.

There are a few stories on the viability of oil production in Tibet.

And you're right, many countries have oil. However, many people think Tibet has none and that is why it is ignored on the world stage.

The fact is that it does have oil and developing it is very important to China and one of the reasons why they are trying to China-fy Tibet with development and people.

[jbg]

The point is not whether Tibet has oil, but an issue many people duck; the rights of Tibetan and now Burmese monks (link) will get far less sustained attention than "Palestinian" thugs. I guess that they aren't "indigineous" enough, or the fact that they aren't hostile to Western interests doesn't qualify them for special UN help. Or else why doesn't the UN provide for Tibetans to strap bombs on themselves and blow themselves up in Beijing?

Edited October 10, 2007 by jbg

[Higgly]

How about this?

China is to Tibet as Israel is to the Palestinians. The difference is that the Palestinians are fighting back.

[M.Dancer]

How about this?

China is to Tibet as Israel is to the Palestinians. The difference is that the Palestinians are fighting back.

The other differences are the Chinese ruthlessly crushed the Tibetan aristocracy and theocracy.

Had Tibet Invaded the new Chinese republic, then got defeated, the similarity would be uncanny.....

[ScottSA]

What about Yak oil?

I think if Israel had ruthlessly crushed the Palestinians without provocation killed and exiled all it's rulers and chased them into the sea off Beirut, and then occupied Palestine with a steel grip, disallowing any form of political sovereihnty, the situations would be marginally similar, except that Tibet was actually a sovereign nation...

Edited October 10, 2007 by ScottSA

[Higgly]

What about Yak oil?

I think if Israel had ruthlessly crushed the Palestinians without provocation killed and exiled all it's rulers and chased them into the sea off Beirut, and then occupied Palestine with a steel grip, disallowing any form of political sovereihnty, the situations would be marginally similar, except that Tibet was actually a sovereign nation...

I think most folks who support a Palestinian State would be happy if Israel were to live up to its obligations under UN Resolution 242, which it ratified, and the Camp David Accords, in which re-affirmed its committment to that resolution.

[ScottSA]

I think most folks who support a Palestinian State would be happy if Israel were to live up to its obligations under UN Resolution 242, which it ratified, and the Camp David Accords, in which re-affirmed its committment to that resolution.

I don't think that's the point. Would you like to have the point explained to you, again?

[M.Dancer]

I think most folks who support a Palestinian State would be happy if Israel were to live up to its obligations under UN Resolution 242, which it ratified, and the Camp David Accords, in which re-affirmed its committment to that resolution.

Israel can't abide with 242 untill all belligerants also comply.

(ii)Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every State in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;

There are still holdouts which refuse to recognise Israel and her pre 1967 borders.

[Higgly]

Israel can't abide with 242 untill all belligerants also comply.

And so it goes.