Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, Edi, K. A. Pital
Would having 150-300K protestors locking up Sharon's house count?Darth Wong wrote: If Israel can keep its rabid expansionist "living space" assholes in line and Palestine can keep its suicide-bombing assholes in line, there might be peace. The problem is that neither of those two groups has a history of going along with peace plans.
That sounds just like what happened with the American Indians.Darth Wong wrote:The Palestinians have to just accept that they got screwed out of a shitload of land in various steps over the last 50 years, they're not getting any of it back ever, and they should strike a deal now to keep it from getting even worse in future. Unfortunately, that's a pretty bitter pill to swallow, although the "Amen Chorus" of Israel-supporters in the US doesn't seem to understand that.
That pretty much sums it up.Darth Wong wrote:Perhaps he is referring to the fact that even after they signed deals with the White Man, they still got fucked over.
I could buy that. However they are going to get their own nation sooner or later. Want to lay bets on when the Cherokee will ever get any part of Geogria returned? How about the Blackfeet and the Dakotas?Perhaps he is referring to the fact that even after they signed deals with the White Man, they still got fucked over.
I mean that despite having a rather shitty deal, (Alot of which happened because they wouldn't take the UN deal waayyyy back, but that's beside the point) They are not being treated anywhere near in the fashion has the Tribes were. I don't see any laws in Isreal that says it okay to shot any group of Arabs over 5 becasue they're a warparty. While they got a bad deal, saying they're just like the Indains of North America cheapens what happened during the 1700 and 1800s. I don't see the Isreal army killing women and children purposfully to rack up a higher body count, I don't see the Isreal government attempting to introduce new plauges to weed out the population (Smallpox blankies anyone?)peaking as a skosh part Cherokee/Choctaw myself, how do you mean? Clarify please.
The Sioux Nation wasn't burned in a day.MKSheppard wrote:He's got a point, If Israel was as bad as you say they were then we'd all be speaking of the Palestinians in the past tense
And the US Army of the era didn't have tanks and choppers, among other nifty implements of mass killing.Chmee wrote:The Sioux Nation wasn't burned in a day.MKSheppard wrote:He's got a point, If Israel was as bad as you say they were then we'd all be speaking of the Palestinians in the past tense
No argument there.Petrosjko wrote:And the US Army of the era didn't have tanks and choppers, among other nifty implements of mass killing.Chmee wrote:The Sioux Nation wasn't burned in a day.MKSheppard wrote:He's got a point, If Israel was as bad as you say they were then we'd all be speaking of the Palestinians in the past tense
*shrugs* FM's right. It's an apples and oranges comparison.
OK, so it isn't EXACTLY the same. You could also argue that the Indians didn't use car bombs either to fight back. But thats a technality since they weren't around.frigidmagi wrote:I mean that despite having a rather shitty deal, (Alot of which happened because they wouldn't take the UN deal waayyyy back, but that's beside the point) They are not being treated anywhere near in the fashion has the Tribes were. I don't see any laws in Isreal that says it okay to shot any group of Arabs over 5 becasue they're a warparty. While they got a bad deal, saying they're just like the Indains of North America cheapens what happened during the 1700 and 1800s. I don't see the Isreal army killing women and children purposfully to rack up a higher body count, I don't see the Isreal government attempting to introduce new plauges to weed out the population (Smallpox blankies anyone?)
There was a point in time when the complete and wholesale desurction of the Tribes was standard policy. This is not the policy of the Isreali government has I understand it.
The existance of a Palestinian Authority would tend to argue against that. There was never any semblance of giving the various tribes their own nation(s) back, other than the thin soup of tribal sovereignty over the reservations. Furthermore, there are a large number of tribes that flat-out no longer exist, as well as tribes such as the Sac and Fox tribes that were so reduced in numbers that they had to merge (in this case becoming the Sac-Fox tribe) in order to survive.Darth Servo wrote:OK, so it isn't EXACTLY the same. You could also argue that the Indians didn't use car bombs either to fight back. But thats a technality since they weren't around.
The methods used are just nitpicks. The Palestinians got cheated out of land that was rightfully theirs, just like the Indians did.
Some of the more militant Palestinians are fighting back with what weapons they can, just like some of the more violent Indians did.
The Palestinians are generally stereotyped as "terrorists" similar to how the Indians were stereotyped as "savages".
Face it there isn't a whole lot of difference.
Well, the Israelis probably would have had a much easier time of it if they'd been able to (accidentally, of course) engage in some form of bio-warfare that destroyed a huge percentage of the healthy male warrior population before the conflict ever started .... sure helped out against the North American natives.Petrosjko wrote:The existance of a Palestinian Authority would tend to argue against that. There was never any semblance of giving the various tribes their own nation(s) back, other than the thin soup of tribal sovereignty over the reservations. Furthermore, there are a large number of tribes that flat-out no longer exist, as well as tribes such as the Sac and Fox tribes that were so reduced in numbers that they had to merge (in this case becoming the Sac-Fox tribe) in order to survive.Darth Servo wrote:OK, so it isn't EXACTLY the same. You could also argue that the Indians didn't use car bombs either to fight back. But thats a technality since they weren't around.
The methods used are just nitpicks. The Palestinians got cheated out of land that was rightfully theirs, just like the Indians did.
Some of the more militant Palestinians are fighting back with what weapons they can, just like some of the more violent Indians did.
The Palestinians are generally stereotyped as "terrorists" similar to how the Indians were stereotyped as "savages".
Face it there isn't a whole lot of difference.
When the cavalry was sweeping across the west, there was no significant level of international protest. There were no NGOs to help create and sustain refugee camps, no UN to intervene. No nearby nations funded resistance efforts, etc. etc. The tribes were brutally and thoroughly broken, and then absorbed.
If I sound bitter, I'm not. It's ancient history. But the Palestinians have gotten a lot more support than the tribes ever received, as evinced by Arafat's billion dollar bank account.
Certainly. They would have also been aided if the rest of the world was ignoring them while going around on various imperialist adventures, and if the nations in the immediate vicinity weren't supporting the resistance for their own ends.Chmee wrote:Well, the Israelis probably would have had a much easier time of it if they'd been able to (accidentally, of course) engage in some form of bio-warfare that destroyed a huge percentage of the healthy male warrior population before the conflict ever started .... sure helped out against the North American natives.
There wasn't the technology 150 years ago to unite all the Indians together to stand against the white man.Petrosjko wrote:The existance of a Palestinian Authority would tend to argue against that. There was never any semblance of giving the various tribes their own nation(s) back, other than the thin soup of tribal sovereignty over the reservations.
And some Palestinian families haven't been wiped out?Furthermore, there are a large number of tribes that flat-out no longer exist, as well as tribes such as the Sac and Fox tribes that were so reduced in numbers that they had to merge (in this case becoming the Sac-Fox tribe) in order to survive.
There was also no CNN to broadcast to the world what was going on.When the cavalry was sweeping across the west, there was no significant level of international protest. There were no NGOs to help create and sustain refugee camps, no UN to intervene. No nearby nations funded resistance efforts, etc. etc. The tribes were brutally and thoroughly broken, and then absorbed.
So? The difference is still ust one of degrees and technology.If I sound bitter, I'm not. It's ancient history. But the Palestinians have gotten a lot more support than the tribes ever received, as evinced by Arafat's billion dollar bank account.
True, but relative to the standards of international conduct of the era, the American tribes got relatively normal treatment, for "savage heathens". The Israelis are operating in an international environment which would simply not tolerate that behaviour, but they do push to the limit of what the international community will tolerate.Petrosjko wrote:If I sound bitter, I'm not. It's ancient history. But the Palestinians have gotten a lot more support than the tribes ever received, as evinced by Arafat's billion dollar bank account.
Nor was there any international pressure for the US to do anything but assimilate the tribes. Furthermore, until the end the tribes were not interested in presenting a united front, nor were they localized in a geographical region in such a fashion as to make that possible.Darth Servo wrote:There wasn't the technology 150 years ago to unite all the Indians together to stand against the white man.
Not even remotely comparable. Not to cheapen the deaths of Palestinians, but their culture is not threatened with extermination here, and never has been. Whole tribes of peoples were exterminated, with malice and calculation.And some Palestinian families haven't been wiped out?
And the world at the time would not have given a shit. The rest of the west was pretty much doing the same thing in their occupied territories, to lesser or greater extents. The US public by and large didn't care. There were precious few arguments against genocide in those days. In modern times, the word genocide makes everybody stop for a moment and look, because it conjures up the Holocaust, the Killing Fields, Ethnic Cleansing and Rwanda. In those days, it wasn't even a going concern.There was also no CNN to broadcast to the world what was going on.
No, it isn't. Is Israeli occupation brutal? Yes. Are their actions unjust? In many ways, yes. Is it a deliberate policy of genocide? No. Given the disparity of forces, the Israelis could simply march across the Palestinian territory killing every person that moves. If the US Army had been able to do so in the West, there's every indication they would have done precisely that.So? The difference is still ust one of degrees and technology.
Agreed.Darth Wong wrote:True, but relative to the standards of international conduct of the era, the American tribes got relatively normal treatment, for "savage heathens". The Israelis are operating in an international environment which would simply not tolerate that behaviour, but they do push to the limit of what the international community will tolerate.
For the circumstances, it is apropos. Nixon was part of the hardline anticommunist movement for a long time. The effect is not necessarily that upon the other group, be it the Chinese or the Palestinians. It's the effect of having one of the conservatives making motions against what had previously been his own platform. It has to come from within, as it were.Chmee wrote:Although I understand why the comparison is attractive, you're really talking more about MacArthur going to China ..... Sharon is no Nixon to the Palestinians.
And these new tactics that are going to kill just as many civillians are going to be what exactly? Firing rockets over the wall? Less effective, harder to do, and a decided improvement. Recruiting within the wall and asking Israeli Arabs to blow themselves away? Less effective, harder to do, and a decided improvement.It's a wall .... not exactly the first time one has been used ... Maybe it will have that result of reducing casualties, I tend to think it will only cause a change in tactics.
That is going to be a long, long wait. And they will be able to penetrate it: maybe by recruting Israeli Arabs; maybe by firing rockets, mortars, or artillerly over the wall; maybe by coming in via the sea. The level of violence will be dramatically reduced, but will not go away until the present generation of Islamic militants dies out.I think that Israel will withdraw from Gaza, complete the fence around the West Bank, and then withdraw from the West Bank beyond the pale, so to speak. They will then hold the fence and kill anyone who tries to penetrate it until the Palestinians give up doing so.
I understand that argument, but I'll go back to the requirement for a minimum level of trust .... the party you're negotiating with has to at least have the capability of trusting you. If Nixon was held personally responsible by the Chinese for the mass murder of Chinese civilians, then it would be like Nixon to China ...... but he wasn't, so it isn't.Petrosjko wrote:For the circumstances, it is apropos. Nixon was part of the hardline anticommunist movement for a long time. The effect is not necessarily that upon the other group, be it the Chinese or the Palestinians. It's the effect of having one of the conservatives making motions against what had previously been his own platform. It has to come from within, as it were.Chmee wrote:Although I understand why the comparison is attractive, you're really talking more about MacArthur going to China ..... Sharon is no Nixon to the Palestinians.
That's irrelevant, since no negotiation is required for Israel to withdraw. Only the marginalization of the pro-settlement parties is necessary.Chmee wrote: I understand that argument, but I'll go back to the requirement for a minimum level of trust .... the party you're negotiating with has to at least have the capability of trusting you. If Nixon was held personally responsible by the Chinese for the mass murder of Chinese civilians, then it would be like Nixon to China ...... but he wasn't, so it isn't.
