What is a 'Palestinian'?

[Je suis Babar]

I'm curious as to why on this forum the vast majority of 'socialists' invariably support a reactionary, religiously fundamentalist people that call themselves 'Palestinians'.

Just exactly what is a 'Palestinian'? Sure, Palestina has existed at some point, in that the Romans called it that - the land of the Philistines, and not the Palestinians. 'Palestine' also existed under the Turks, but then it was a Turkish state with an Arab Bedouin majority.

So, as pseudo-socialists (because, let's face it, the vast majority of you are) you're willing to support terrorist groups such as Hamas, or a group of people who all but universally support Hamas - but not a state founded on some very socialistic principles. Have any of you ever even heard of a Kibbutz?

[Xvall]

Don't make assumptions. I don't have the slightest clue as to who the 'hannas' are, let alone support them.

[PunkRawker677]

I don't think anyone, or at least most members on this board, support terrorism of any sort. But most of us do understand that the Palestinian people (using palestinians as a name for the rightful dwellers of the land of Palestine) suffer from severe oppression and are willing to go to extreme measures to fight there way out of as a means of vengence. There are wrongs on both side.

If you are a zionist, and think Palestinians are not the rightful dwellers of their land, then why are the jews? Weren't the polythiestic Uruks and Urs there first? At the beggining of history in the mesotopian area there were no Jews, yet what we today call Israel had many dwellers. So by the zionists same logic, the Pagans deserve the land, not the Jews.

[Brian]

Palestainian people are mostly pigs!

[Ian]

The vast majority of people on this board hate terrorists and see them as counter-productive. The exceptions are of course the pseudo-socialists. I hate religious fundementalism and would hate to see the future state of Palestine established by fundementalists.

And in answer to your question, I find it patronising to myself and my peers thats you would ask a question such as 'Have any of you heard of a Kibbutz?'. I have, as have many others on this board heard of Kibbutzes and at one point I was thinking about going to become a Kibbutznik until I found out that most of them were practically anarcho-capitalist. The first of them weren't this way and were truly communes in the pure sense set up by Ukranians trying to avoid pogroms, anti-semeticism etc...

So if you support the systematic destruction of a race and the cruel way Israel imposes its will upon this race, then go ahead, be a fool, be a ignoramus, just don't go on about how great you are because you know the word psuedo and what a kibbutz is and don't piss me off.

[Je suis Babar]

"I don't think anyone, or at least most members on this board, support terrorism of any sort. But most of us do understand that the Palestinian people (using palestinians as a name for the rightful dwellers of the land of Palestine) suffer from severe oppression and are willing to go to extreme measures to fight there way out of as a means of vengence. There are wrongs on both side."

To support the Palestinian people is to support terrorism, and homicide bombing - as the vast majority of Palestinians are in favour of, as the PA and BBC so eloquently put it "Martyrdom Operations". There are no longer any moderate Palestinians.

"If you are a zionist, and think Palestinians are not the rightful dwellers of their land, then why are the jews?"

Point out to me just one moment in history where there's been a land named Palestine, ruled by Palestinians.

"Weren't the polythiestic Uruks and Urs there first? At the beggining of history in the mesotopian area there were no Jews, yet what we today call Israel had many dwellers. So by the zionists same logic, the Pagans deserve the land, not the Jews."

Which is why the Zionist Jews were willing to have a bi-national state with the Druze and Bedouin Arabs alike. By the way, didn't the Muslims wipe out the pagans?

[suffianr]

Trick question, eh?

Your somewhat sang froid association of the term "Palestinian" with the term "Terrorist" (who isn't one, nowadays, btw?) is most distressing, as is your assumption that it is highly irregular that there are no moderate Palestinians.

You try being a moderate during an Israeli siege of your hometown, under occupation by an overwhelmingly powerful army that you know you can never defeat. Is there a place ofr moderates in Palestine, right now?

Your argument is not about who owned the land first or who backstabbed who to get more land afterwards...if you were honestly attempting to find out more about the crisis, you would be a little more forgiving with your tone of inquiry...

And what the hell do the pagans have to do with Palestine? Or your accusation of Muslims wiping them out

But that's beside the point.

But I'm sure you knew that... :)

[Je suis Babar]

"Your somewhat sang froid association of the term "Palestinian" with the term "Terrorist" (who isn't one, nowadays, btw?) is most distressing, as is your assumption that it is highly irregular that there are no moderate Palestinians."

There may be some more moderate individuals, but there are no moderate Palestinian factions.

"You try being a moderate during an Israeli siege of your hometown, under occupation by an overwhelmingly powerful army that you know you can never defeat. Is there a place ofr moderates in Palestine, right now?"

Yes, obviously, and if the majority of Palestinians were moderate then they'd have no 'occupation' to fight. The Muslim intolerance for those of other individual (read: peaceful and moderate) viewpoints and subsequent killings of people with said viewpoints.

"Your argument is not about who owned the land first or who backstabbed who to get more land afterwards...if you were honestly attempting to find out more about the crisis, you would be a little more forgiving with your tone of inquiry..."

I know more than enough about the conflict to make a competent analysis, I put it to you that it's the general argument (although perhaps the word argument should be replaced with slogan[s]) that's so widespread and in favour of the Palestinians that's a fallacious one.

"And what the hell do the pagans have to do with Palestine? Or your accusation of Muslims wiping them out"

'punk rawker' or whatever variation of his name he chooses to use referred initially to the pagans, not I.

"But that's beside the point."

Yes, it is, and see above to note that I didn't initiate discussion about pagans.

[Xvall]

"To support the Palestinian people is to support terrorism, and homicide bombing - as the vast majority of Palestinians are in favour of, as the PA and BBC so eloquently put it "Martyrdom Operations". There are no longer any moderate Palestinians."

With that logic, supporting the Israeli people means you support the occupation. It also means that if you 'support' america that you support Bush, which obviously isn't true, as several people like the country, but hate the president. I don't care what you say, we've amde our choice. We don't support terrorism. Stop trying to say we do. We already told you.


"Point out to me just one moment in history where there's been a land named Palestine, ruled by Palestinians."

Does it matter? Just because there hasn't been a Palestine doesn't mean there shouldn't be! There's never been World Peace either, should we give that up? There wasn't even an Israel until recently.

[suffianr]

Great. Your methodical replies remind me of the comments I used to get on my report card in high school.

But you've barely answered my questions, only supported it with competent rhetoric!

Nice try, though. We might reach an agreement on the"Palestinian" issue one day, but it looks like a deadlock for now...how ironic, given the topic of discussion...

[Beyond Good and Evil]

Its important to remember that the Palestinian "cause" includes right wing groups like Hamas and such. These groups arnt going to dissapear when and if Palestine reaches statehood, in fact, they are likely to weild huge power. Arafat and the Palestinian leadership is not left, they are not socialist, and I doubt they are going to tolorate those that are. What do you think Hamas or the nationalists would to do leftist Palestinians who demand reforms, equalirty between sexes and workers, and a less military focused government? Hamas will kill them, that is if the government doesnt do it outright.

It is a horrible and barbaric act by Israel to slaughter the Palestinians for their land, but do you really think the Palestinians woulndnt seek revenge agains the Israelis if given the upper hand? The ruling class on both sides sees the other as less that human savages and heritical killers. They wont take the high road if given the chance to exterminate their enemy so easily, hate doesnt just go away.

It's a knee-jerk reaction to support the Palestinians, because they ARE being opressed, and they ARE being slaughtered, and Isreail has NO right to do this. Think ahead tho, supporting the Palestinian cause wont bring peace or justice, it would just redirect the violence back at the Israelis, and 40yrs down the road wed have to save THEM from the people THEY opressed. Is this the kind of "peace" you really envision? Do two wrongs make a right?

Short term answers produce short term results. The vast majority of the people in the Middle East dont deserve to die, and so lumping them together with the IDF or Hamas is a cruel injustice and is completly wrong, as is supporting one side over the other, because the solution produced will be short term, and the violence will continue.

[Je suis Babar]

"With that logic, supporting the Israeli people means you support the occupation. It also means that if you 'support' america that you support Bush, which obviously isn't true, as several people like the country, but hate the president. I don't care what you say, we've amde our choice. We don't support terrorism. Stop trying to say we do. We already told you."

Israelis bar a few extremists don't want to keep land if it means more blood. There could be a Palestinian state in two weeks if the terrorism stopped.

"Does it matter? Just because there hasn't been a Palestine doesn't mean there shouldn't be! There's never been World Peace either, should we give that up? There wasn't even an Israel until recently."

It matters because terrorists target innocent children over a country that's really merely nothing more than an Arab abstraction, if that.

[Je suis Babar]

nm

(Edited by Je suis Babar at 8:43 pm on July 7, 2002)

[Conghaileach]

from Je suis Babar
By the way, didn't the Muslims wipe out the pagans?

I think that was the Christians. And even so, the Muslims showed respect to all people of all religions who lived in the region.

The Muslim faith is the most tolerant of all religions. Only the Koran begins by stating that all people, no matter religion, should be treated with dignity and respect.

[I Will Deny You]

[hr]Quote: from Je suis Babar on 2:32 pm on July 6, 2002
I'm curious as to why on this forum the vast majority of 'socialists' invariably support a reactionary, religiously fundamentalist people that call themselves 'Palestinians'.[hr]How are they reactionary or religious fundamentalists? Their elected leader (who, by the way, I think is a douche bag) is far less of a fundamentalist than his biggest competition. They are no more reactionary or fundamentalist than the Israelis, and I (like most of the people on this site) will never say "push them into the sea" or anything like that. I support the Israelis just as much as I support the Palestinians. I think that they have both made huge mistakes and that they have both been betrayed and fucked over. If it were up to me, they would both live in their own independent states.[hr]Quote: from Je suis Babar on 2:32 pm on July 6, 2002
Just exactly what is a 'Palestinian'?[hr]A Palestinian is someone whose ancestors lived on what is now Israel/the Occupied Territories and now may very well live in a refugee camp.[hr]Quote: from Je suis Babar on 2:32 pm on July 6, 2002
So, as pseudo-socialists (because, let's face it, the vast majority of you are) you're willing to support terrorist groups such as Hamas[hr]Unlike you, I started a thread that was dedicated to nothing but being anti-suicide bombing. And unlike you, I had a clear point and knew what I was talking about.[hr]Quote: from Je suis Babar on 2:32 pm on July 6, 2002
a group of people who all but universally support Hamas[hr]Well, it's either the Palestinians or the Israelis, and the Israelis support Ariel Sharon. I think they're both assholes and I think they both should run independent states. Also, when the land was originally stolen from Palestinians, they did not support suicide bombers. It's important that we not only look at the current situation, but the events that got us here.[hr]Quote: from Je suis Babar on 2:32 pm on July 6, 2002
a state founded on some very socialistic principles. Have any of you ever even heard of a Kibbutz?[hr]Just because there are a few communes, that doesn't mean that the whole country was founded on socialistic principles. The country could not possibly exist if it weren't for British imperialism. It gets the weapons that it uses to kill Palestinians with from America, which is another country that has a few communes but sure isn't communist. The vast majority of Israel is not socialist.[hr]Quote: from Je suis Babar on 5:44 am on July 7, 2002
To support the Palestinian people is to support terrorism, and homicide bombing - as the vast majority of Palestinians are in favour of, as the PA and BBC so eloquently put it "Martyrdom Operations".[hr]Well in that case, to support the Israelis is to support terrorism, because Israeli soldiers have committed acts of terrorism and the majority of Israelis did not seem to mind.[hr]Quote: from Je suis Babar on 5:44 am on July 7, 2002
Point out to me just one moment in history where there's been a land named Palestine, ruled by Palestinians.[hr]So, because they were oppressed before, they deserved to be oppressed forever? The middle east would all be Sumeria if different peoples were not allowed to form states at some point. And, considering the fact that Israel had not existed for about 2,000 years before 1948, your argument against Palestine pretty much undermines your argument for Israel.[hr]Quote: from Je suis Babar on 5:44 am on July 7, 2002
Which is why the Zionist Jews were willing to have a bi-national state with the Druze and Bedouin Arabs alike.[hr]Oh, that must be why the Israeli parliament voted that there can never be an independent Palestinian state at all. That must also be why the majority of Zionists support the Occupation.[hr]Quote: from Je suis Babar on 5:44 am on July 7, 2002
By the way, didn't the Muslims wipe out the pagans?[hr]The Muslims and various Pagans have exchanged blows for over a thousand years. There is still a lot of tension between the Hindus and Muslims, especially in India.[hr]Quote: from Je suis Babar on 11:47 am on July 7, 2002
There may be some more moderate individuals, but there are no moderate Palestinian factions.[hr]Did it ever occur to you that if the Palestinians were allowed to have their own democratic state, the moderate Palestinians would have a lot more of a voice?[hr]Quote: from Je suis Babar on 3:36 am on July 7, 2002
There could be a Palestinian state in two weeks if the terrorism stopped.[hr]If the Israelis are so willing to accomodate the Palestinians, why are they still enforcing the Occupation (which is illegal under international law)? Since they're willing to break international law just to spite the Palestinians, make Jewish fundamentalists happy, and in all likelihood provoke more suicide bombings, it's hard for me to believe that they would give the Palestinians their own state.

Lindsay

[Michael De Panama]

I don't agree with you, Lindsay, that it's either the Palestinians or the Israelis. I think both sides should fuck off. They're fighting over land ownership! How socialist is that?

[Conghaileach]

It's much more than that. The Palestinians are fighting against the force which has murdered and oppressed them for over 35 years.

[I Will Deny You]

Quote: from Michael De Panama on 8:13 pm on July 7, 2002
I don't agree with you, Lindsay, that it's either the Palestinians or the Israelis. I think both sides should fuck off. They're fighting over land ownership! How socialist is that?
They're not just fighting over "ownership". You make it sound as if it's some kind of imperialistic concept that old school Native Americans would laugh at. These people want to be able to use the land for themselves. (Currently, almost all Palestinians who work have to work in Israel.) They don't necessarily want to own land, but they would all like to be able to live on a piece of land that Israeli tanks won't bulldoze. And who the hell said anything about being socialist?

Lindsay

[Je suis Babar]

"How are they reactionary or religious fundamentalists? Their elected leader (who, by the way, I think is a douche bag) is far less of a fundamentalist than his biggest competition. They are no more reactionary or fundamentalist than the Israelis, and I (like most of the people on this site) will never say "push them into the sea" or anything like that. I support the Israelis just as much as I support the Palestinians. I think that they have both made huge mistakes and that they have both been betrayed and fucked over. If it were up to me, they would both live in their own independent states."

Whilst the orthodox in Israel wields greater power than their number might imply they would, to state that Israel is nothing but a secular state is absurd. It's also equally absurd to call 'Palestine' anything more than a theocracy.

"A Palestinian is someone whose ancestors lived on what is now Israel/the Occupied Territories and now may very well live in a refugee camp."

You mean previously nomadic Arabs - who, prior to Israel's creation had no real nationality.

“Unlike you, I started a thread that was dedicated to nothing but being anti-suicide bombing. And unlike you, I had a clear point and knew what I was talking about.”

1) This is my first post on this forum if you look at my post count and read my posts they’re all in this thread with the exception of one which is in a thread with a similar title to this one though I forget exactly what it is, and I'm not about to start a myriad of threads just because you feel so inclined.

2) Does someone not knowing what they're talking about = not having your exact same mindset?

“Well, it's either the Palestinians or the Israelis, and the Israelis support Ariel Sharon. I think they're both assholes and I think they both should run independent states. Also, when the land was originally stolen from Palestinians, they did not support suicide bombers. It's important that we not only look at the current situation, but the events that got us here.”

Or, rather, the lack of events - such as the non-existence of 'Palestine'.

“Just because there are a few communes, that doesn't mean that the whole country was founded on socialistic principles. The country could not possibly exist if it weren't for British imperialism.”

Britain gave the destiny of Israel to the UN, they were free to prevent the creation of the state without Britain's approval but instead the USSR and America approved, and Israel was founded.

“It gets the weapons that it uses to kill Palestinians with from America, which is another country that has a few communes but sure isn't communist. The vast majority of Israel is not socialist."

Cuba defeated America in the Bay of Pigs with weapons from the U$$R, also.

"Well in that case, to support the Israelis is to support terrorism, because Israeli soldiers have committed acts of terrorism and the majority of Israelis did not seem to mind."

The vast, vast majority of Israeli soldiers are overly careful not to target civilians - whereas Palestinians FOCUS their attacks on civilians.

"So, because they were oppressed before, they deserved to be oppressed forever? The middle east would all be Sumeria if different peoples were not allowed to form states at some point. And, considering the fact that Israel had not existed for about 2,000 years before 1948, your argument against Palestine pretty much undermines your argument for Israel."

I fail to see how the non-existence of Israel for 2,000 years negates the fact 'Palestine' has never existed.

"Oh, that must be why the Israeli parliament voted that there can never be an independent Palestinian state at all. That must also be why the majority of Zionists support the Occupation."

I was referring to 1948, just prior when the 'Palestinians' and Arab countries began their war to drive the Jews into the sea. You are, of course, referring to ONE party - Likud - in the Israeli parliament.

"The Muslims and various Pagans have exchanged blows for over a thousand years. There is still a lot of tension between the Hindus and Muslims, especially in India."

Yes, the Muslims seem to exchange blows with a lot of ethnic groups.

"Did it ever occur to you that if the Palestinians were allowed to have their own democratic state, the moderate Palestinians would have a lot more of a voice?"

Did it ever occur to you that if the Palestinians were allowed to have their own democratic state, it would be neither moderate, secular nor democratic?

"If the Israelis are so willing to accomodate the Palestinians, why are they still enforcing the Occupation (which is illegal under international law)? Since they're willing to break international law just to spite the Palestinians, make Jewish fundamentalists happy, and in all likelihood provoke more suicide bombings, it's hard for me to believe that they would give the Palestinians their own state."

Israel's official stance is that if the terrorism stopped, the Palestinians could enter negotiation for a state. The occupation is not to keep Jewish fundamentalists happy, but is vital if Israel is to defend itself.

[Josip Broz Tito]

It is a country in the Middle East, partly occupied by imperialist Israel helped with the source of evil, U$A.