Palestinians & First Nations no Different From Anyone Else

[jbg]

I am writing because I am totally fed up with people who are on a guilt trip about white European population of the New World, and those who oppose Israel for displacing "Palestinians". World history has been characterized by wholesale movements of flora, fauna and people since Gondwana (or Gondwanaland)(link) and the legendary continent of Atlantis (link) split up into their component parts.

Mankind originiated in the Great Rift Valley eons ago. We multiplied, and spread out, initially, through the joined continents of Africa, Europe and Asia. Eventually, mankind spread to many islands, to Australia and to the New World. Within each of these areas, there have been mass movements of peoples, often with deadly consequences for those in the "receiving" areas. The spread of Islam in the century or so after Mohamed is a case in point. The movement overseas of Europeans needing a safety valve from the restrictions and idiocy of feudal life was another. The movement of FN's from northeast Asia to the America is yet another. Rolling back the results of these population shifts is wildly impractical.

If Israelis have to go "back" to Europe, and Americans/Canadians also have to go "back" to Europe, do we then have to retrace our steps all the way back to the modern Tanzania? What about those indigenous people?

Edited September 1, 2012 by jbg

[bush_cheney2004]

Hmmmm...angst noted....but would you concur with the similar and continued movement (and displacement) of North American and European peoples by Asians, Africans, Muslims, et al? This includes Israel.....

[jbg]

Hmmmm...angst noted....but would you concur with the similar and continued movement (and displacement) of North American and European peoples by Asians, Africans, Muslims, et al? This includes Israel.....

Smallpox provided a major assist in the Western Hemisphere (and Australian) situations. And my point is that we in the West (and Israel) are right to resist displacement. That does not mean it cannot happen.

[bush_cheney2004]

Smallpox provided a major assist in the Western Hemisphere (and Australian) situations. And my point is that we in the West (and Israel) are right to resist displacement. That does not mean it cannot happen.

OK...I just want to keep you intellectually honest. The Mongols did not need smallpox....

[jbg]

OK...I just want to keep you intellectually honest. The Mongols did not need smallpox....

I believe they lost their resistance to it over time, as did the Aussie Abos. The main Eastern Hemisphere continental landmass incubated many diseases that were relatively harmless to its people, but devastated the Abos and FN's.

I assume you agree with my point that we must fight to avoid the fate of those dislocated from their homes by invaders.

[bush_cheney2004]

I assume you agree with my point that we must fight to avoid the fate of those dislocated from their homes by invaders.

More or less....I agree that nobody has the right to land, only the right to defend it.

[bk59]

I assume you agree with my point that we must fight to avoid the fate of those dislocated from their homes by invaders.

So people have the right to fight to avoid being displaced... doesn't that mean that the Palestinians & First Nations have the right to fight to avoid being displaced? Would you argue that if Canadians were forcibly displaced from Canada they would have the right to try to regain that land? Or would you just say, "I guess we're out of luck; time to move on and hope we can settle elsewhere"?

More or less....I agree that nobody has the right to land, only the right to defend it.

But that's the problem isn't it? When a First Nations band steps up and says "we have a treaty that says this land is ours and you have taken it without permission", aren't they defending their land? The problem is that the current owner(s) of the land think they are also defending their land. This is the heart of land claims issues.

Incidentally, people certainly do have a right to land. A right to use it as they wish, to exclude others, and to defend it, among other things. If people only had the right to defend land then you run into huge problems. Such as the next time you go out to get groceries I could enter your house. Now I have the right to defend it, but you don't have the right to anything. I'm not sure that's a situation you really want to encourage.

[jbg]

So people have the right to fight to avoid being displaced... doesn't that mean that the Palestinians & First Nations have the right to fight to avoid being displaced? Would you argue that if Canadians were forcibly displaced from Canada they would have the right to try to regain that land? Or would you just say, "I guess we're out of luck; time to move on and hope we can settle elsewhere"?

But that's the problem isn't it? When a First Nations band steps up and says "we have a treaty that says this land is ours and you have taken it without permission", aren't they defending their land? The problem is that the current owner(s) of the land think they are also defending their land. This is the heart of land claims issues.

Incidentally, people certainly do have a right to land. A right to use it as they wish, to exclude others, and to defend it, among other things. If people only had the right to defend land then you run into huge problems. Such as the next time you go out to get groceries I could enter your house. Now I have the right to defend it, but you don't have the right to anything. I'm not sure that's a situation you really want to encourage.

So, bk59, I guess it's heads the so-called "indigenous victims" win, tails Westerners lose?

[old_bold&cold]

So by your take on things, it goes back to the survival of the fittest, and displacement or death to the losers? I will agree that the majority of our time here on earth has been lived on those very basic concepts. For the nation with the stongest armed forces then, it would be just a simple push and conflict and voila they have more land. If this truly was the position of things today we would still be fighting small wars all over the place. We, I hope at least, have grown beyond that kind of life into one where negoitations and treaties are abided by. The problem is, in todays world there is no real loser when it comes to breaking treaties. We do not take the losing people and make slaves of them. We seem to tolerate the redrawing of borders and homelands, without resloving the issues that were important to earlier times.

The first Nations people were a wandering people. They followed the animals that were hunted by them. To say that they had their own territories, would not be wrong, but it is not actually true either. Their homelands were more of a agreement with their neighbours to not hunt in the others areas, but many tribes also have travelers that would go between tribes and even marriages so to speak between other tribes. There were few is any communities that were used all year round. I would suppose that much of these territorries were won thru war, but I also would image after a while they were mostly held by promise or aggreements. Once the settlers from Europe came, these people built homes and settlements that were year round. They farmed the soil much more then the native people did, and while they did hunt and fish they did not move their communities with them to do so. Of course there were exceptions to this in the village of Hochellaga and Satacona, wich are now Quebec city and Montreal. The natives here in Canada were far from the societal structures of the Myan or Aztec. We still see a nomadic life for much of our Inuit people and yes they had territories, but no fought over them much. In these times if you settled a land it was yours. You could not just say you owned a whole mountain, but if you settled it and were working the whole area then yes it was yours. The use it or lose it time of things. You can still get free land today in northern Ontario, but you must clear it and farm it to be given clear title. This is where we have so much confict today over land claims. The natives have not settled all the land they were given access to and therefore do not own that land. The treaties signed gave the native people access to the federal land but owership rights were not open ended as the natives would like them to be. That is where we have all the legal and procedural wrangling go on. Some governments recognised land ownership, but only to the settled lands others did not or did some partial version of it all. That is why we have the mess we are in today.

The palestinian's though were a people who settled much of Israel for many centuries. It was ruled by many nations in the past, but the people were always there. When the British turned this land over to the Jews to be used as a home land, there then became a very strong protest by the palestinian people, that they had rights to this land as well and ownership should be recognised. The Israeli government does not see things as such and therefore sought to segregate the people from them. This meant moving most of them from Jurusalem. Hence much of the conflicts of today. The arab world sees this as an act of aggression by Israel, and while not openly waring against Israel they do support the palestinian causes enough to keep wars a regular thing. The fact that before the british took control of Ireal the arab world ruled it and yes settled it very much like the Israeli do today. There does not seem to be a fair line that anyone will recognise so you have wars and skirmishes all the time.

It all comes down to when is conquered land a property of the winning side? Are there legal positions that can show this in the courts of law? If so what obligation does the conquering side have to the losing side ? If we go back in history, it would be cut and dried. All the conquered people would be considered slaves of the winning side and therefore as proerty themselves they can not own land in that country. But we want to think we have grown since those times. So what is the rule and how is it to be applied.

[Keepitsimple]

The Palestinian situation is not that different from the India/Pakistan partition - which after initial bloodshed, has resulted in two democracies. In 1947, Britain granted independence to India and at the same time, created the countries of India and Pakistan. "Partition" to accommodate religious sectors had been brewing for years. somewhat clumsily guided by the League of Nations. The ensuing displacement of Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims was massive - as was the violence....but it abated to a large degree. India and Pakistan accepted partition and the pain of displacement and evolved to democratic countries. Arab countries did not accept partition at all - in fact, they stole the ability of Palestinians to determine their own future by attacking Israel.....and here we are today, 60 years later. Here's the link to the creation of Independent India and Pakistan - I've positioned the link on the Population Exchanges because that will show the similarity to what could have happened in the Middle East - but there is an interesting historical context to partitioning....so you might want to scroll back up to the beginning.

Partintion of India/Pakistan: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_of_India

[bush_cheney2004]

Incidentally, people certainly do have a right to land. A right to use it as they wish, to exclude others, and to defend it, among other things. If people only had the right to defend land then you run into huge problems. Such as the next time you go out to get groceries I could enter your house. Now I have the right to defend it, but you don't have the right to anything. I'm not sure that's a situation you really want to encourage.

No, you are confident in your false asertion only because of the underlying power that backs it up. Your "right" to land is meaningless in the face of stronger forces and circumstances (e.g. war, conquest, natural disasters, etc.). There is no right to land or groceries without the the power to defend same. Furthermore, government may confiscate such things with due process, again with the use of force.

Don't confuse natural rights with the artificial contrivances of modern government and the governed.

[jennie]

No, you are confident in your false asertion only because of the underlying power that backs it up. Your "right" to land is meaningless in the face of stronger forces and circumstances (e.g. war, conquest, natural disasters, etc.). There is no right to land or groceries without the the power to defend same. Furthermore, government may confiscate such things with due process, again with the use of force.

Don't confuse natural rights with the artificial contrivances of modern government and the governed.

I don't think our governments can "confiscate things with force". If they expropriate land, they pay. Force is not likely.

[M.Dancer]

I don't think our governments can "confiscate things with force". If they expropriate land, they pay. Force is not likely.

The term is ....symbolic.....but in reality, if they expropriate, and you refuse to accept the payment, they can use force.

[bk59]

So, bk59, I guess it's heads the so-called "indigenous victims" win, tails Westerners lose?

Perhaps you should read my post again. In terms of who gets what, in my post I'm not taking one side or the other.

Maybe you should also try answering some of my questions. If you think we have the right to fight to avoid being dislocated then why is it you seem to dismiss the rights of others to do the same? If you were forced out of your land would you not fight to get it back?

[bk59]

No, you are confident in your false asertion only because of the underlying power that backs it up. Your "right" to land is meaningless in the face of stronger forces and circumstances (e.g. war, conquest, natural disasters, etc.). There is no right to land or groceries without the the power to defend same. Furthermore, government may confiscate such things with due process, again with the use of force.

Don't confuse natural rights with the artificial contrivances of modern government and the governed.

It's interesting that you bring up natural rights to defend the position that no one has the right to own land. Mostly because there is a theory of property rights based on natural rights, advanced by John Locke, whereby when one mixes their labour with nature they acquire ownership over that part of nature that has been mixed with their labour. In other words, if I build a house on a parcel of land, then I acquire ownership of that house. Perhaps I am not the one who is confused about the idea of natural rights.

Even without discussing natural rights, your position has numerous problems. If you only have a right to defend land, then how can you purchase land? How can you sell land? Which land is yours to defend? If you can only defend land that you currently occupy, then anyone can come along and take it while you are away and you have no recourse; they now have the right to defend the land and you have no rights at all (according to your position).

Don't confuse having a right with being able to exercise that right. Someone can come along and take something of yours by force. That does not mean that you do not have an ownership right to that thing.

[jbg]

I'd like to thrown another element into the mix of Israel/Arabs, Pakistan/India and FN/Whites. How about China's seizure of Tibet, or the Janjaweed attacks on the Dharfuris?

[jbg]

World history has been characterized by wholesale movements of flora, fauna and people since Gondwana (or Gondwanaland)(link) and the legendary continent of Atlantis (link) split up into their component parts.

More on Atlantis. But some apparently still have the same unrealistic ideas about return except they don't expect Germans to reclaim territory Poland expropriated at the end of WW II.

[bud]

More on Atlantis. But some apparently still have the same unrealistic ideas about return except they don't expect Germans to reclaim territory Poland expropriated at the end of WW II.

israel is signatory to the united nations and by continuously annexing land that does not belong to them, they continuously violate international law. it's not like israel annexed land once and that's it. they are doing it today. it's a systematic land grab. palestinian house demolitions continue to happen in east jerusalem and the west bank. once they demolish homes, they confiscate the land and then jewish only homes are built. put aside your tribalistic and nationalistic feelings and stop trying to justify such illegal and immoral behaviour.

Edited September 1, 2012 by bud

[Moonlight Graham]

Since the creation of the UN it's been agreed by all states that you can't annex territory from another. The end of WWII also saw the creation of the modern human rights era, and marked the end of colonialism as countries began preparing nations for independence.

Israel shouln't have to pick up and leave, but they shouldn't be building settlements either. What they've tried to do over the last 50 years is akin to colonialism, and it's BS. Not to say the Palestinians are angels either. Just because other countries annexed & colonized others throughout history doesn't make it right. Split the territory 50/50 and be done with it.

[TheNewTeddy]

There is a huge difference between Pals and FNs

When the "whiteman" came over to this continent, they did 3 different things.

The Iberians had sex with them (the FN)

The French allied with them

And the English tricked them into signing crappy used car land transfer deals.

France was defeated in these parts. England only managed to form 2 countries, but they are now the 2 richest countries. Iberian countries became so successful that if you speak an Iberian language, statistical odds are, you live on this side of the world.

Due to the "deals" the English had the FN sign, they are now stuck on reserve.

The Pals meanwhile faced the same fate as the Kurds, or the Baluchi, etc. They lost a war at some point, and have no homeland. Look at a map of Poland from 1920, and look at one from today. The whole of Poland just shifted 100 miles over due to war. Germany got smaller. Look at a map of Ireland from the year 1000 and look at one from the year 2000. Somehow, nearly a million Scotsmen appeared in Ulster. What happened to the Pals is no different than what happened to other groups in Europe. In fact, the only difference is, in Europe, everyone apologized about the wars, while in the middle east, they all want a mulligan.

[madmax]

So, bk59, I guess it's heads the so-called "indigenous victims" win, tails Westerners lose?

I knew I was in the wrong business. You lawyers close the door and then, flip a coin....

I gues the real difficult ones are determined by a 3 out of 5 :P

No 2 headed coins needed.

That said, I am sure it got lost quickly, but it reads to me like you are merely stating your frustration, which given the timeline and the circumstances are shared by many, in order to get to a resolution.

Edited September 1, 2012 by madmax

[Canuckistani]

The Pals meanwhile faced the same fate as the Kurds, or the Baluchi, etc. They lost a war at some point, and have no homeland.

OK, but what does Israel do now? Drive the Palestinians into the Jordan? According to Israel, the Palestinians driving them into the Mediterranean would amount to another holocaust. Wouldn't the same logic apply to the reverse?

I doubt the Israelis want the Palestinians among them a la Kurds in Turkey. Look at the problems of the Kurds in Turkey, about to get worse with the situation in Syria and Iraq. Same with the current policy of creating Palestinian Bantustans on the West Bank - bound to create pockets on continuing festering resentment.

Israel's best hope is a 2 state solution. Personally I would favor Israel doing so unilaterally if necessary. Close the settlements, retreat behind some version of the pre '67 border, no right of return and in this case I would support Israel being fairly aggressive about Jerusalem. It might not lead to peace immediately, but would certainly remove victim status and support from the Palestinians.

[Rue]

OK, but what does Israel do now? Drive the Palestinians into the Jordan? According to Israel, the Palestinians driving them into the Mediterranean would amount to another holocaust. Wouldn't the same logic apply to the reverse?

I doubt the Israelis want the Palestinians among them a la Kurds in Turkey. Look at the problems of the Kurds in Turkey, about to get worse with the situation in Syria and Iraq. Same with the current policy of creating Palestinian Bantustans on the West Bank - bound to create pockets on continuing festering resentment.

Israel's best hope is a 2 state solution. Personally I would favor Israel doing so unilaterally if necessary. Close the settlements, retreat behind some version of the pre '67 border, no right of return and in this case I would support Israel being fairly aggressive about Jerusalem. It might not lead to peace immediately, but would certainly remove victim status and support from the Palestinians.

Not that it should surprise you but I totally agree with your comments.

As well while I may not have agreed with some of what Old Bold said in his comments earlier I concur with his legal restatement of the issue between Israel and Palestinians:

"It all comes down to when is conquered land a property of the winning side? Are there legal positions that can show this in the courts of law? If so what obligation does the conquering side have to the losing side ?"

I concur because it is precisely the frame of questioning the Supreme Court of Israel pursued when it stated the status quo can not go on in regards to the West Bank.

I would remind some of you that JBG's original remark prefaces once again the Middle East conflict between Israel and Palestinians in a rigid, black and white context. As a Zionist I reject his categorizations of Palestinians and the conflict 100%. I again always state I am a Zionist to make a point that one can agree with Israel's right to exist but not agree with some of its policies, and in particular its approach to the West Bank. In fact I would state the majority of Israels do not necessarily agree with the current status quo on the West Bank and are fed up with it although I do not speak for Israelis nor will I ever. I have no right to. I only express my personal views.

There are a complex series of legal issues in regards to ownership of land privately and who controls the land publically through sovereign states. There are therefore private civil laws as to property ownership, municipal, federal and international laws and doctrines that all come into play and inter-relate and so can not be settled independently of their co-relationshiops with other inter-related legal issues on other levels of jurisdiction. Therein lies the complex maze from which the solution must come.

I will state it again. For there to be a lasting and fair solution it would have to be arrived at by both Israelis and Palestinians without coercion by interest groups on either side. Reason and civility would have to prevail over religious, nationalist and external political interference.

For any solution to work it would require some very basic infrastructure needs:

1-fresh water supply and safe disposal of sewage and grabage guaranteed to both sides;

2-no terrorism or political violence of any kind;

3-travel on highways and airports that could allow both Israelis and Palestinians to travel

without excessive delay;

4-employment;

5-recreation , medical and educational facilities accessible to all;

6-grass roots organizations bringing Palestinians and Israelis together at the street level to

build homes, roads, sewage systems, waterways, share education, technology and work day to day on mutual needs;

7-cooperation with electric and other energy distribution grids;

8-free markets to be able to ship, export and import food.

The above 8 issues are complex and yet they are the fabric required to build a stable society.

The crux of the issue becomes how do we focus on bring Palestinians and Israelis together to pursue

these 8 items.

Well it first requires shifting focus from what has not worked in the past to what could work.

It also requires we understand that all of the above may not be realistic until such time as fundamentalist

religious leaders and terrorists are contained and had their power bases and weapons taken away and this is why I agree

with Cauckistani that from a very practical perspective it might be required to do some things unilaterally.

I am from the school of thought which is held by the majority of Israelis that continuing to prop settlements on the

West Bank may be pointless and it is time to draw up realistic, safe borders and say here take the rest and if you don't

want it, tough we have nothing else to give. You wanted the West Bank, here it is. You wanted Gaza back we gave it to you.

Insist on continuing to engage in war to rid us entirely and turn Israel into a Muslim state using the code words

"repatriate Palestinians in Israel" and we shall call that code phrase for what it is just as we will call a "one state solution" what it is, another code word for wiping out Israel.

Too much time has past where terrorists remain in power propping their corupt facist power bases using Israel and the US as their excuse. Too much time has past while extremist religious zealots using the Old Testament as justification agitate on the West Bank fueling Palestinian extremists on the West Bank.

Enough.

Time for Netanyahu to get off the fence. Of course he won't. He is in suspended animation until after the US election.

Netanyahu would love Romney to win thinking he would be more favourable to Netanyahu's agenda. The reality is neither Republican or Demoractic platforms are much different. The interests of the US are not dictated by either of them but by oil needs. They will always need to strike a delicate tight-rope between Israel and oil producing Middle East nations having both formed together with the US an unofficial buffer and alliance against the Iran-China-Hezbollah-current Syria-Russia axis that has formed.

Edited September 1, 2012 by Rue

[Canuckistani]

What do you think Netanyahu's agenda really is? This is a question, not a challenge. I have no idea what his agenda is, tho creating war with Iran and dragging the US into that seems to be part of it. And he seems too beholden to the settler parties to ever consider closing them.

[Tilter]

I am writing because I am totally fed up with people who are on a guilt trip about white European population of the New World, and those who oppose Israel for displacing "Palestinians". World history has been characterized by wholesale movements of flora, fauna and people since Gondwana (or Gondwanaland)(link) and the legendary continent of Atlantis (link) split up into their component parts.

Mankind originiated in the Great Rift Valley eons ago. We multiplied, and spread out, initially, through the joined continents of Africa, Europe and Asia. Eventually, mankind spread to many islands, to Australia and to the New World. Within each of these areas, there have been mass movements of peoples, often with deadly consequences for those in the "receiving" areas. The spread of Islam in the century or so after Mohamed is a case in point. The movement overseas of Europeans needing a safety valve from the restrictions and idiocy of feudal life was another. The movement of FN's from northeast Asia to the America is yet another. Rolling back the results of these population shifts is wildly impractical.

If Israelis have to go "back" to Europe, and Americans/Canadians also have to go "back" to Europe, do we then have to retrace our steps all the way back to the modern Tanzania? What about those indigenous people?

No--- all would have to back to Tanzania which would make Tanzanian land very valuable as it would have to contain ALL the population now on the earth.---- Good solution there Jake