The ‘other Israel’

[pelsar]

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3758123,00.html

War-torn’ land is in fact economic, scientific, cultural powerhouse
Israel today has become a vibrant, functioning jewel of a nation tucked into the eastern flank of the Mediterranean. Tel Aviv looks more like San Diego or Barcelona than Baghdad or Kabul.
_____________

in contrast:

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2009/08/08/UPI-NewsTrack-TopNews/UPI-50921249752023/

the latest from Fatah:
Both east and west Jerusalem must be returned to Palestinian Arabs before peace talks can resume, the sixth Fatah General Assembly decreed Saturday
__________________________

just a few observations: While israel established over 60+ years ago with little more than ideology, plenty of different philosophies, and plenty of "broken people (100,000 from the camps), developed a modern democratic liberal society all the while under various boycotts and attacks, the Palestinians, also with plenty of philosophies, have seen their land shrink, and freedoms reduced over the years, using a failed philosophy and strategy that appears to not have changed for over 60+ years (with the exception of intifada I and the few years after)

the contrast of the two societies from pre 48 is startling
____

the Palestinians are not helpless as many would like to believe, they have proven time and time again that they can affect the geographic area where they live, the people and events. Furthermore they have proven time and time again that they make strategic choices be it military or politically. Its also clear that they have been used and used again by not just their arab "cousins" but by they "friends" in the left, both of which urge them, and pressure them to keep on using a failed philosophy for their own selfish reasons.

They're last proclamation, will not improve their lives.....it will not make israelis want to work with them.....its just the continuation of their previously failed strategy........it would be nice if the western left explained that to them, maybe it would help. (of course i'm not sure the "western" left" actually understands that, or wants a change....)

[sharesunited]

1. Choosing spite over prosperity is just plain dumb. And the world is willing to help.

[FarrenH]

2. If technological development vindicates racist nationalism

and colonialism, then there's some merit in your argument. IIRC European powers used the same argument in the 19th century in Africa, North America, South America and Asia, but I was under the impression we'd left behind that kind of specious reasoning?

To put this in perspective, your argument boils down to "we can steal land and oppress people because we're more developed than they are and they're very aggressive"

[bemildred]

3. Yup, "we have more stuff so we're better",

or the more specialized version "we have better weapons so we're better."

In fairness to the Yurpeans, while they excelled at that sort of thing, it was not their invention, it is as old as civilization, at least. The ancient Greek inventors of democracy would all put aside their quarrels and go stomp the Helots whenever they got uppity.

[Boojatta]

4. "colonialism"

Here's a description of an undergraduate course at Stanford:

HISTORY 211B: Jews under Islam and Christianity in the Middle Ages (HISTORY 311B)
Addresses the relationship between the Jews and the host Islamic and Christian societies during the Middle Ages (AD 500-1500). Themes, covered in a comparative context, include: the Jews' legal status, economic and political rule, toleration and persecutions, adaptation and acculturation, and religious polemics.

It might be a good idea to inform the instructor that at least one society where Jews lived in the Middle Ages wasn't a host society.

[FarrenH]

5. Que

And this has what to do with colonialism in the West Bank? ie. Israel colonising Palestinian land?

[Boojatta]

8. It's about the idea of colonialism.

If you wish to talk about colonialism in the West Bank, then I see two elements involved:
1) colonialism (which is an idea); and
2) the West Bank (which is a place).

If you want to revise the topic to focus on the West Bank without making any reference to the idea of colonialism, then that's fine. However, if you want to make reference to the idea of colonialism, then it's difficult to see how you could claim that I'm trying to unreasonably shift the topic when I myself make reference to the idea of colonialism.

The following might seem ridiculous to you, but I think that:
1) When we talk about colonialism, we're talking about outsiders who have intruded and are imposing something on the people who rightfully live somewhere

2) When we talk about a host society, we're talking about the people who rightfully live somewhere. They are the hosts of others who are guests. Guests have a temporary privilege of living somewhere, but don't rightfully live there.

3) Before we get to the distinction between being an intruder and a guest, we should begin with the distinction between the people who rightfully live somewhere and others who live in the same region, but who aren't entitled to be living there.

[FarrenH]

9. What's happening in the West Bank is prima facie colonialism

effected via a system structurally indistinct from Apartheid. Israel is not "hosting" Palestinians in the West Bank, they are indigenous. If you are drawing a parallel to some other group being "hosted", please elaborate.

And by UN statute Palestinians in the West Bank are regarded as an indigenous population illegally denied self-determination and Israeli settlers in the West Bank as illegal colonists. There, distinction made.

Here's an executive summary of a study by the respected South African Human Sciences Research Council describing how Israel is engaging in colonialism and practising Apartheid in the West Bank:

http://www.hsrc.ac.za/Document-3230.phtml (pdf)

And here is the complete study:

http://www.hsrc.ac.za/Document-3227.phtml (pdf)

The study provides detailed legal analysis along with substantial references to all relevant international law. It was drawn up by an international team of international law experts (including Israeli jurists), and commissioned by an organisation that itself has extensive experience in matters of international humanitarian law.

There are substantial and unambiguous legal grounds for describing the settlements (including annexed East Jerusalem) as illegal colonies and the structure of control in the West Bank as Apartheid.

And its sad watching people like pelsar employ every misdirection in the book, including the Argument From Superior Culture, to justify colonialism and Apartheid, 15 years after it crumbled in my own country, on a liberal message board.

[Boojatta]

10. Where could Israeli settlers in the West Bank go and be neither colonialists nor guests?

Are they indigenous to some place or places on planet Earth?

And by UN statute Palestinians in the West Bank are regarded as an indigenous population illegally denied self-determination and Israeli settlers in the West Bank as illegal colonists.

Where should Israeli settlers who are now in the West Bank go? Is there some location that is agreed upon by all parties as being a place where they have a right to live? After all, they might go somewhere and later the authorities at the UN might decide that they have no right to be there. Alternatively, the UN might say that they have a right to be in some particular location, but the UN might fail to protect such a right, just as the UN fails to ensure that Palestinians in the West Bank actually enjoy the rights that the UN says they have.

There, distinction made.

Do you really think that it's a good idea to take ancestry (and, in particular, ancestry going back thousands of years) as the foundation of the civil right to reside in a given place? According to historical fact and not merely UN statute, the indigenous people of Haiti died out long ago. If the UN requires some territory for some purpose, then does it have the right to drive all of the current residents of Haiti out of Haiti?

[breakaleg]

11. How about Israel? It isn't that difficult a question.

[Boojatta]

13. Who is indigenous to East Jerusalem and who is indigenous to West Jerusalem?

I personally find it amazing that generation after generation of people, for thousands of years, stayed in one part of one city, and we can now recognize whose ancestors were where.

Also, I think that there are some land disputes in that part of the world. I hear that government officials in countries in the Middle East often speak of "the Zionist Entity" as opposed to "Israel, that country with the following universally accepted boundaries."

[FarrenH]

14. Again, you don't have to go back thousands of years

Just examine what was conquered, and which populations were transferred into the conquered territory (an illegal act) after the Geneva convention and UN charter was ratified by the majority of the world's nations (including the young state of Israel). Those protocols were established as a clear moral line in the sand that all agreed constituted basic humanitarian rights and prohibitions. And under those protocols, Israel both illegally annexed and illegally colonised East Jerusalem. If there was an indigenous Jewish population that lived there before, its quite reasonable to exclude those people as "settlers" but by any reasonable interpretation of international law they should be residents of an autonomous Palestian state, or Palestinians should be part of a single state encompassing the West Bank and Israel. There are no other legal or moral choices.

[Boojatta]

17. If you use the word "indigenous" to refer to the status of some people

in some part of the Middle East, then you are talking about thousands of years. For example, unless I'm mistaken, Jericho is much older than Las Vegas.

[FarrenH]

19. No-one cares who lived somewhere thousands of years ago

What is the point of this digression? Its not about the meaning of the word. The word is just used here as a conveniance to quickly communicate the concept "resided there in living memory, recognised by the international community as native to the region and did not originate from elsewhere in living memory". That other meanings can be inferred has no bearing on the ethical considerations in play, which makes quibbling about other possible interpretations ridiculous.

[Boojatta]

33. Fine, it's just an abbreviation for...

"resided there in living memory, recognised by the international community as native to the region and did not originate from elsewhere in living memory"

Unfortunately, that description uses the word "native." If all of John Smith's ancestors were living in North America in 1895, then is John Smith entitled to call himself a "Native American" and post as a "Native American" here?

Unfortunately, the description also uses the term "living memory." Are people keeping a memory alive by publicizing or commemorating it? Alternatively, must there be living witnesses of an event for the event to have occurred in living memory? Or perhaps there may be no living witnesses of a specific event, but the event is still considered to be within living memory if there still remain alive people who witnessed other events that occurred on the same day or in the same year?

As indicated above, the word "native" already serves as a synonym for "indigenous", so replacing the word "indigenous" with a long-winded description that includes the word "native" (and that also includes the term "living memory") fails to provide genuine clarification.

[FarrenH]

35. I can't see the point of this discussion

You could leave our the middle bit and have a useful definition. In any event, IL only implies the above, rather than trying to define indigenous or native, via laws regarding war and occupation. That's my inference.

The relevant portions of international humanitarian law and the manner in which Israel is violating them is layed out quite explicitly, without wriggle room, in the documents from the SA HSRC above. So rather than bicker about meaning any more, I'll direct you to those documents. Under IL, Israel is a belligerent occupying power and the settlers are engaging in illegal colonisation.

[bemildred]

37. Well, we definitely got away from the question of whether more stuff makes you better, eh? nt

[pelsar]

41. its not more stuff..

its the philosophy of the two societies, their leaders and what motivates them....

and the contrasts are vast........i also realize that exploring those issues would bring up a hosts of name calling (racism etc)...but the fact is that societies are not the same, they have different cultures and they have different results for their people....some for better some for worse... (and fatahs latest proclamations is an excellent example of a "the worse.")

furthermore any excuse for fatah etc that they "lack the means" is easily dispelled: one the jews/israels also have limited means pre and post 48 and it didnt stop them and two no one "forced" fatah to make their last declaration (just on example) which is a guarantee to continue their misery-something that will keep them from getting "more stuff".....

and thats just the facts...the I/P conflict is a good example of different societies and how they react to diversity and difficulties....

[bemildred]

42. Hi Pelsar.

We have not chatted in a long time. I hope things are well with you.

I think it is a mistake to categorize people by their cultures, religions, governments, etc. I think human rights inhere to humans for example, not to their cultures or governments or whatever. A person has a right to be judged based on their own actions, not where or to whom they were born, or the government they live under. But I don't expect to resolve that with you here. I'm sure you know I'm not going to defend the excellence of Fatah.

:hi:

[pelsar]

43. Hi...

i'm fine...busy with work, growing kids and fascinated with the US politics....and needed a break from the I/P......i found fatahs proclamations to be absolutely disgusting. Not because i "worry" about them, but because it utterly destroys any minimum belief/hope that i and others like me have in some sort of movement here.

As far as the inherent rights of a human being, your not going to get an argument out of me.....but i can't ignore that cultures affect us, how we react, and the consequences of those actions.

just as companies have cultures, some that fail and some that don't, so to do societies....and though they can be changed in time, the way they react has to be taken in to account..because they have a direct affect upon those within those culture.

The Palestinian or Tamil suicide bombers did not magically appear, their societies/leaders, decided to "produce them"..and so they did. Other societies decided not to. .The problem with the Palestinian society as far as i can see, with that last declaration, is that living in peace and providing for their own is simply not their number one priority, and it the rights of their citizens to live in peace etc, cannot happen if their societies leaders do not have that as their number one priority....

[FarrenH]

12. On the second point:

The accepted norm regarding the right to live in a place is whether a people resided there in living memory. Which kind of clears up your question. That is also enshrined in international law. International humanitarian law addresses the issue of whether an injustice (such as property theft) was committed against a people or their immediate forebears, and can be fixed. In this case it has, and can be fixed. Land was stolen and can be returned to the original occupants or their immediate descendants, who were demonstrably materially affected by that theft.

On the first point: They could stay there and become citizens of a palestinian state, subject to the same kind of land claims process we white south africans are, or Israel could accomodate them. Frankly, I don't give a damn either way. They have stolen land that belongs to a people who are still alive. If I stole your house, you would think I was nuts if I demanded you find me another home before I can be evicted from it. They can live in refugee camps for all I care. They stole land and they knew they were stealing it when they did.

My parents home (a plot in the countryside) is currently the subject of a land claims process that was instituted in post-apartheid SA for exactly the same reason and they risk losing it. And I think it is right and just. I have no sympathy for specious appeals to homelessness by (mostly bigoted religio-nationalist) settlers or their enablers, because they are nothing more than appeals to allow people to keep the fruits of theft.

[Boojatta]

15. "They can live in refugee camps for all I care."

Does the UN control its own territory that contains refugee camps? If not, then the refugee camps will be located within some conventional nation-state. Thus, the consent of the government of some conventional nation-state would be required.

If I stole your house, you would think I was nuts if I demanded you find me another home before I can be evicted from it.

In your analogy, I am supposed to find you another home, but in the actual situation it is the nations of the world -- which now claim the right to control all of the territory in the world -- that would find territory (not a house) where those people would have a right to live. Alternatively, they might be classified as people who have no right to live anywhere and who are temporary guests who can be periodically collectively deported, as Jews were during the Middle Ages.

[FarrenH]

16. Boojatta,

they are Israeli citizens, so there is already a territory where they have a right to live. Ergo, you are wrong. It really is almost exactly the same as my analogy. The only difference being that its like me going to the UK and stealing someone's property there, then being evicted and deported to South Africa.

If I stole your house when you were on holiday or worse, chased you out of it at gunpoint, it is right and proper that I am evicted and deported. I am still a citizen of a state, though, and that state can either leave me to wander the streets, homeless or find some way of accomadating me. That is Israel's problem. The land was stolen. This is completely irrelevant.

[Boojatta]

18. "they are Israeli citizens, so there is already a territory where they have a right to live"

Again, I must point out that there are some land disputes in that part of the world. I mean not just regarding settlers in the West Bank, but all of Palestine/Israel.

[FarrenH]

20. and...?

We have a land claims process here that involves formal proceedings in a special court, mandated aerial surveys and historical evidentiary requirements (et al) and a government fund to pay market rate (generally in reality well below the market) for expropriated land. It also allows for deals to be reached between claimant and current resident, which in some cases has resulted in indigenous claimants partnering with new residents (who have expertise) in successful commercial enterprises, rather than simple expropriation.

Perhaps both Israel and a future Palestinian state need similar processes to effect full justice. Regardless, most of the settlements are open and shut cases of invasion and colonisation, so its probably a good idea to deal with that before finessing the aftermath.

[Vegasaurus]

6. No, it comes down to making something from nothing

The Israelis have always shown initiative, drive and ambition.

They survived despite the most incredibly bad odds.

The Palestinians have been given far more opportunities, global money and support.

They have squandered those opportunities and goodwill.

Israelis are not "more developed" because they "steal land and oppress people".

They are more developed because they value education, hard work and improving their lives and the lives of others.

[FarrenH]

7. The claim that they are more developed BECAUSE

they have stolen land and oppressed people

wasn't made.

Who are you replying to?

Comprehension difficulties?

[Lakrosse]

21. what stolen land?

Israel has never annexed the West Bank, has given back Gaza, and intends to exchange land and occupation for PEACE, which the Palestinians haven't offered or accepted. Arafat rejected peace in 2000. Israel is only required to withdraw "from territories," not "all territories," and some settlements can be built as long as they are part of the safe borders the UN resolution stipulated, given that the 1967 borders weren't exactly safe. Also, Israel has dumped settlements in peace deals, like with Yamit in Egypt after Sadat actually accepted peace. We saw what happened when Israel withdrew from Gaza everything, all they got was more jihad in return.

[FarrenH]

29. Israel withdrew from Gaza while expanding its settlements in the West Bank

And has never offered close to a fair deal for Palestinian statehood. Every single offering in every single peace negotiation has fallen short of both what Palestinians are legally entitled to and what is fair and proper. As such all of their offerings amount to demands to accept massive, illegal dispossession and colonisation in return for peace. And whatever you think of Palestinian political movements the Palestinians have a right to violently oppose any colonial occupation until it ends. The present Palestinian population are not Jordanian, Syrian and Egyptian agents, they are indigenous people of a colonised land, and continuing justification of thier oppression on the grounds that those countries (two of which have completely normalised relations with Israel) fought a war with Israel 40 years ago, is thoroughly specious.

[pelsar]

44. that "fair deal"...

Every single offering in every single peace negotiation has fallen short of both what Palestinians are legally entitled to and what is fair and proper

i never really understood that concept of "fair"....is it based on your versions of fair. or islamic jihads? or fatahs or zimbabwas? or the UNs....i mean i would think the concept of fair should be up to the cultures involved and not some colonial western "colonialists" version of fair. (especially since one of the cultures appears to reject the whole concept of western democratic values.....)


The present Palestinian population are not Jordanian, Syrian and Egyptian agents, they are indigenous people
and just a fun question...do you know how many of those Palestinians came in the early 1900's for gainful employment after the jews came and started to develop the economy? (are you including them in your "indigenous" people count?)

i mean you do want to be "fair" ...and i would guess that they and their offspring shouldnt be counted as "indigenous"...since they arent....

[Lakrosse]

22. what "racist nationalism?"

the idea of Jewish nationalism is no more "racist" than Arab nationalism. The only difference is that Pan-Arabism sought to ethnically cleanse Israel. Israel did not carry out a systematic "ethnic cleansing" even according to Benny Morris. Also, if what is going on in the WB/G is ethnic cleansing, then there is no such thing, given the increasing population of those territories.

If the Palestinians simply used the massive amount of money they get from foreign aid for a technological society instead of swindling everybody like when Arafat stole 2 billion dollars, or more weapons to "liberate 'Palestine'" they'd have a stable economy, and less reason to be at war, and would have peace and a state.

[FarrenH]

23. Jewish nationalism, per se, is not racist

and that's not my claim.

The Jewish nationalism of the settler movement, predicated as it is for the most part on divine right to all of Eretz Yisrael, and damn the current occupants, is inherently racist. Your blather about the Palestinians has no bearing on this fact.

[Lakrosse]

24. how tho? I think the settler movement isn't so

simplistic. Yes some of the settlers are Greater Israel nuts, yes, some are racists, but many are just people who need cheap housing. And pursuant to the UN resolution which says land for peace but only withdrawal "from territories," not" all territories," and for secure and defensible borders, Israel is allowed to keep some of the land. Also, the existence of racists is sure as hell not unique to Israel. Watch any Islamic and Arab TV channels in the Mid East.

Also, what do you say about the Islamists who think all of Israel and the territories are "Islamic land" in which only Muslims or dhimmis should live? Is that not racist (yes I know its religion but same principle)?

[FarrenH]

27. I think they're bigots

My particular interest in Israel and the settlers is that unlike Islamists who aspire to kick out or ram their backwards values down the thoats of everyone in the region, Israel and its variant of Apartheid has been protected from sanction by hundreds of vetos by the major powers in the UNSC and is funded to the tune of billions by the USA, as well as being defended by alleged liberals in the West. I don't see Western democracies pouring billions into supporting Hamas, or a small army of purported liberals fighting tooth and nail to defend their onerous beliefs and actions in public discourse.

So as a westerner and someone who lived through Apartheid and saw Nelson Mandela labelled a "terrorist" by ostensibly developed, human-rights oriented democracies, I obviously have a peculiar interest in fighting tooth and nail with purported liberals in the west to encourage them to stop demonstrating such massive hypocrisy in their support of an Apartheid state.

[HamdenRice]

25. I suspect billions and billions of transfer payments have much to do with this success

Rostow demonstrated this economic "law" of development many decades ago.

[LeftishBrit]

26. I'm afraid I disagree with virtually everyone on this thread!

I disagree with Farren, because I don't think that the Occupation is colonialism. Colonialism occurs when a country occupies or annexes another with a view to making use of the people or resources of that area, and with a view to putting that area under its long-term or permanent jurisdiction.

I don't think Israel is using the OTs for its own economic purposes. They are not interested in making use of Palestinian labour, and, while the settlers take a disproportionate amount of resources when there, I don't think that the OTs were annexed *for* their resources. If the OTs were particularly valuable in terms of either their opportunity for labour exploitation, or other resources, wouldn't Egypt and Jordan be expressing far more interest in getting them back?

Israel is continuing the occupation for two reasons: (1) Perceived security needs - they are afraid that an independent Palestine would treat them as an enemy and attack them (a genuine fear, but this can happen and has been happening for a long time *without* Palestinian independence!) and (2) a seeming inability to stand up to a nasty minority of mostly religious right-wingers who have an ideological interest in keeping 'Judea and Samaria' and who do not represent most Israelis.

One big problem is indeed that Israel is treating Palestine, especially Gaza, *both* as a territory under its jurisdiction and thus linked to the state, *and* as an enemy-state. A bad combination. (The Arab states do no better, with their own unholy combination of treating the Palestinians as pawns and 'brethren' against Israel, and as unwanted immigrants and outsiders.)

I disagree with the argument of the pro-Israel people on the thread, as it comes across as saying 'The Israelis have done better economically than the Palestinians; therefore they are better and more deserving than the Palestinians'. It comes across as similar to the arguments of real colonialists in the past that their colonies were not 'ready' for independence because of their lower economic and technological advancement; and even more to the arguments by current right-wingers that poor countries 'deserve' their poverty and therefore should not be given foreign aid, and that poor people are 'welfare queens' who are morally inferior to those who have managed to 'pull themselves up by their bootstraps'. Judging the deservingness of a person, country or group according to its level of economic progress is exactly what progressives are surely against!

The Palestinians simply have not been in the same position as the Israelis over the last 60 years, and their economic opportunities have not been comparable. Just receiving aid is not on its own enough for a country to prosper long-term; in the modern world they also need for example good opportunities for links with other countries - not something that the OTs have had. Their freedom and opportunities have been badly restricted in all sorts of way. Some of this is due to Israel (see my 4th paragraph); some of it to the Arab states and their manipulations (see my 4th paragraph); and some to their own generally crap leadership.

As regards false 'friends on the left' - well, I do agree that it would be good if some left-wingers abroad devoted more time and effort to establishing links with, and opportunities for, Palestine than to recommending boycotts with Israel (e.g. if the fringe among British academics who want to boycott British universities had instead devoted attention to promoting Palestinian education and links with it). But I don't think that the 'international left' as a very divided whole have as much influence either as we would like to think, or as opponents accuse us of.

[FarrenH]

28. LeftishBrit

"I don't think Israel is using the OTs for its own economic purposes. They are not interested in making use of Palestinian labour, and, while the settlers take a disproportionate amount of resources when there, I don't think that the OTs were annexed *for* their resources."

Permanent settlements that have continuously expanded for decades, along with demands to permanently retain large chunks of Palestinian territory in any peace agreement, completely obviate that belief. Frankly I simply cannot understand how one can buy any part of the "security only" argument in the face of facts on the ground. In fact you provide the factual contradiction to that claim then wave it away without providing any compelling argument why is can be disregarded, which is peculiar.

I strongly advise you to read the legal study I linked from the SA Human Sciences Research Council, which lays out a compelling, factually grounded case for the contention that the occupation is an unambigously colonial enterprise. 400,000 settlers and permanent economic infrastructure to support them and connect them to the colonial powers economy is prima facie colonialism. It cannot be handwaved away as a matter of personal opinion.

[LeftishBrit]

30. Quick point...

I don't think that keeping up the settlements is justified either morally or logistically. I think that it is counterproductive to peace and ultimately to security. So I'm not defending them in the least. I'm just disagreeing about motivation. I think that the Israelis do stupid things out of fear (as do the Palestinians) and that both sides are showing the classic sort of counterproductive behaviour found in studies of the 'Prisoners Dilemma' (when neither person knows what the other person will do, they act on the basis of assuming the worst, often with a result that is much worse for both sides than if both had acted on the basis of mutual interest).

It would only be colonialism if Israel were benefitting in some direct economic or other way from keeping these territories. In fact, if that were the case, it might be easier to use carrots and sticks to get them to end the occupation.

[FarrenH]

31. Israel is benefiting, directly and economically

The settlements are home to a millions of the tiny, land-starved country's citizens and are home to a slew of industries. Beyond that there is an obvious future economic benefit if they can bludgeon the Palestinians into accepting a less than equitable solution. And the simple fear argument flies in the face of the explicit opinions of millions of settlers, who openly state their belief that all of "Eretz Yisrael" belongs to Jews and no-one will stop them from taking it. They are an undeniable, significant political influence. So again, on obvious factual grounds, your accomodating take on motivation is faulty.

[shaayecanaan]

38. benefit...

General Dayan said in his conversations with Mr. Tal that the kibbutz leaders who had urgently demanded that Israel take the Golan Heights had done so largely for the land.

''The kibbutzim there saw land that was good for agriculture,'' he said. ''And you must remember, this was a time in which agricultural land was considered the most important and valuable thing.''

Mr. Tal asked, ''So all the kibbutzim wanted was land?''

And General Dayan answered: ''I'm not saying that. Of course they wanted the Syrians to get out of their face. They suffered a lot because of the Syrians. Look, as I said before, they were sitting in the kibbutzim and they worked the land and had kids and lived there and wanted to live there. The Syrians across from them were soldiers who fired at them, and of course they didn't like it.

''But I can tell you with absolute confidence, the delegation that came to persuade Eshkol to take the heights was not thinking of these things. They were thinking about the heights' land. Listen, I'm a farmer, too. After all, I'm from Nahalal, not from Tel Aviv, and I know about it. I saw them, and I spoke to them. They didn't even try to hide their greed for that land.''

[aranthus]

32. I have to differ with you on your first point.

While I agree that the Israelis aren't engaging in colonialism in the West Bank, I think it's simply because Israelis and Jews have had a connection to that area for a long time before Israel ever existed. Colonialism is the sending of a group of people from the home country to someplace that country has no prior connection with, in an effort to take over. Australia and South Africa were colonies of England. Jews have a connection to the West Bank going back a long way. There were Jewish communities there before Israel was founded, and which were driven out by the Jordanians.

Second. while Israel may not have formally annexed the West Bank, I think that de facto they have. Certainly parts of it. You're right that Israel is treating the territories as both theirs and as an enemy state. They claim that the territory is disputed, but they treat it as if it is is part of sovereign Israel. They may want the land, but they don't want the people who are living on it. That won't fly. As a democracy, Israel has to abide by the principles of a democracy. I don't think that they can treat the land as theirs without offering the people living on it the choice of citizenship. They can't continue to have it both ways.

You're also right that the settler's views don't represent most Israeli's thinking. But at some point we have to ask, so what? It may be a minority view, but if it's controlling, then isn't that what people have to deal with?

[LeftishBrit]

39. Some good points from all of you...

To some degree, I was conflating the situation with Gaza and the West Bank and thinking mostly of the former. There is less of the 'enemy state' treatment, but more of an element of colonialism, with the latter.

I suppose my real point is that, whatever may have been the case at the beginning, the Occupation is costing Israel a great deal by now, probably more than any economic benefits that it brings, and this is likely to increase with time. I would actually say the same with regard to security; but I think that Israel is getting to recognize it more with regard to economics than security.

[pelsar]

45. its not economics.....

there is no real settler economy in the westbank...many of the settlers are communters. And though they do serve as a physical buffer, that too is not the case with kassams.....

there simply is no political pressure to remove them, since most israelis see only a net security loss with removing the IDFs freedom in the westbank and the increased risk of hamas taking over..

...a repeat of gaza.

[Boojatta]

34. This is an excellent idea!

it would be good if some left-wingers abroad devoted more time and effort to establishing links with, and opportunities for, Palestine than to recommending boycotts with Israel (e.g. if the fringe among British academics who want to boycott British universities had instead devoted attention to promoting Palestinian education and links with it).

[FarrenH]

36. Its quite possible to do both

And sanctions are an excellent idea. They certainly helped end SA Apartheid.

[Violet_Crumble]

40. I don't agree with yr definition of colonialism...

Take Australia as an example of a place where colonialism happened. I doubt you'd disagree and try to argue that it wasn't colonialism, but how you described colonialism actually excludes it as being colonialism. When Australia was colonised by European settlers, there was no plan to make use of the indigenous population of Australia or of any resources. The sole plan for the first few decades of colonisation was to use it as a penal settlement and for the convicts and settlers to become self-sufficient eventually. I'd argue that colonialism also occurs when a country occupies or annexes another country or territory with the aim of settling its own population on that land...

[bemildred]

47. Colonialism is essentially the act of colonizing, making colonies, essentially a territorial issue.

It is the taking of territory and creation of communities with people that were not living on that territory before, generally as a matter of government policy. It gets muddied up with other things, but essentially it is the taking of land and moving of new people onto the land taken. The presence or absence of indigenous people is not what determines whether the term is being used correctly, though that does have other implications; for example if there are no indigenes, one can't really say the territory was "conquered". If you admit to conquering, you admit to there being previous occupants. The Chinese have been colonizing Tibet and the Uighur territories for some time, as a matter of government policy. The Soviet government had a policy of colonizing Russians into various parts of their empire. Empires commonly colonize their dominions, as a method to assert control. The USA is the single most successful colonial enterprise in history.

Just my two cents.

[Violet_Crumble]

49. That's how I've always seen it as being defined n/t

[bemildred]

50. Right, colonialism is the policy of making colonies.

As distinct from imperialism, which is the policy of building empires. They often go together, but are not the same. Australia is a very successful colonial project too. Colonies sometimes succeed and become independent and autonomous, but that does not change their original character as colonial enterprises. The point is that the (3rd) Geneva conventions, a recent invention, forbid the colonizing of conquered and occupied territories. Glad we got that straightened out.
:hi:

[pelsar]

46. thank you...

As regards false 'friends on the left' - well, I do agree that it would be good if some left-wingers abroad devoted more time and effort to establishing links with, and opportunities for, Palestine than to recommending boycotts with Israel .

its far less exciting...far less news worthy (i think of the nuns who when to africa to convert the natives...their devotion is what impresses me),but its what the Palestinians need..

some real hard core liberals/progressives who are willing to go to the gaza or the westbank and set up some underground schools that teach democracy, human rights, the rights of homosexuals etc.....

[shira]

48. won't happen - they'd be rocking the boat, pissing off Hamas - too dangerous

better for 'progressives' not to piss off Hamas and play nice there.....how do you think human rights orgs and media have so much freedom to do as they wish in the territories? they play Hamas' game and do nothing but reinforce to the Palestinians that westerners will do nothing to confront extreme fanaticism.

They do as Hamas wants them to do, otherwise, they're kidnapped, knee-capped, killed, or worse.

It's really noble of them, don't you think?

How 'progressive'. And they really have a lot of the world convinced they're free to report, be fair, impartial, and do as they wish in the territories while roasting Israel and doing Hamas' bidding propaganda work.

:eyes: