Comparing Middle East situation to Native American situation

[Atehequa]

It's extremely disturbing.

Indeed, but it gets people talking. Allows messages to be conveyed. Not really a comparison. Just flint steel and tinder along with several moths attracted by the light.

I completely get it, and probably did from the get go .

OK. Let's get back to the comparison. I already posted how I thought the two situations were similar. You've also posted a little about how you think they're similar. Can you elaborate on the similarities more? (If you'd like to, of course). Do you think the title to this break-off thread is an appropriate title or do you think it should have had another title?

The title is fine, Doreen and more than Middle Easterners and NDN's have been regarded. I think it's a clear study of how humans are probably the most fucked up creatures on the face of the earth and after many thousand years of being Homo Sapiens, on a whole, we still haven't got it together yet. Small wonder that cockroaches and ants are going to out survive us.

[still.trucking]

panta wrote:

- again, i am not making this experience. my experience is getting lots of info about it and news about it (which both may bear a certain bias towards the one or the other side, but this only helps to get a rounder picture), but why would there be "propaganda" about it in your country or mine and why would the media want to instill fear about it?? what would be the use of it??? it wouldn't even make sense.
though if this is your experience, it may be different over there than it is here - i don't know.

We live here in a very emotional country

that's the difference I think

as far as the fear mongering
well you got to rise above it
yes I am not making it my experience either
only thing I fear is ignorance

somebody said more sanctions
as if the Palestinians are not being punished enough

I like this bit speaking of comparisons
between Gaza and the US

Last week, as the fighting raged, President Obama raced to express US support for the Israeli side, in a statement that perfectly exemplifies the tragic-comedy of US foreign policy. The US supported the Israeli side because, he said, “No country on Earth would tolerate missiles raining down on its citizens from outside its borders.” Considering that this president rains down missiles on Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and numerous other countries on a daily basis, the statement was so hypocritical that it didn’t pass the laugh test. But it wasn’t funny.

counter punch

I am sorry about my post to panta above, I came back to delete it but it is too late

[still.trucking]

Atehequa wrote: Small wonder that cockroaches and ants are going to out survive us.

Santayana wrote:

"Perhaps man's only true dignity is his ability to despise himself."

[panta rhei]

jack? what are you sorry for? no need to be sorry for anything!!!

[Arcadia]

today´s news about Canada observing Israel moves after UN lasted decision about Palestine...

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-d ... m-1.483129

first time I read the word "reprimand" , we have one similar in Spanish: it sounds a little archaic tough, it has the atmosphere of fábulas or early infance stories printed in Spain ...

I didn´t know about this demographic aspect around the West Bank:

http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/12/05/ ... t-project/

I was also googling about which is the procedencia of the new colonos in the West Bank ... what I found seemed to me at moments simple, at moments complex ... the links led me to Irving Moskowitz and the Bnei Menashe ...

[zero_hero]

not sure of the etymology of reprimands but the word brings back bad memories of the aftermath of world war one, reprimands sure did not help back then.

That is good copy from counterpunch, I was very disappointed with counterpunch a few months ago, it seemed like every time I went there I saw a posting by Israel Shamir...then all of a sudden he was gone, and I don't see him there anymore. I was kind of relieved to see him go. Not that there is anything wrong with being a Stalinist. Yes I was aware of it, I don't know why I find it funny in some twisted way, as if the Arabs and the Jews were trying to out fuck each other, out breed each other. I don't know what is wrong with that, except it seems inhuman to me. Who am I to judge? Too many rats in the box or demographics is a bitch with an ice pick

[mnaz]

a quote from someone on another website:

. . . the Zionist-controlled government sees the conflict as being in its interest. Especially since it controls the occupied territories, and makes claims to the disputed territory as its own. Settlements are built and expanded all the while no peace negotiation is underway, with the full knowledge that these settlements will become leverage in any eventual negotiation.

got me thinking (again). there is (at least some) truth in this. it's not the entire story of course, and obviously it's no sure thing that hamas would have changed its stance, or become marginalized, or not gained significant power to begin with if israel had more earnestly (at least in my perception) pursued peace negotiations in the last couple of decades, but we'll never know, right? because the israeli government has (mostly) pursued a hard line approach over that time period-- although a series of negotiation efforts were made in the '90s to the early 2000's (see next post below).

some people no doubt feel that a harder line is appropriate going forward, and obviously it's easy for me to sit here 10,000 miles away and criticize. but meanwhile, nothing gets resolved. no negotiation, nothing.

i try not to take sides in this conflict, i really do. but i think we should all be aware of a basic shift in israel's political leadership since the '90s--- dominated by a fundamental p.o.v. that trading land for peace is no longer an acceptable option for the negotiation table (what remains of it).

----------------------------------------------------

here's a quick review of u.n. resolutions (among others) applicable to the conflict:

1) u.n. resolution # 242: main purpose: to call for israel to cease its occupation of land taken in the 1967 war.

2) u.n. resolutions # 468, 469, 608, 636, 641, 681, 694, 726 and 794 among others, condemning israel's deportation of palestinians.

3) u.n. resolution # 446, which condemned israeli settlement building on occupied territory. (u.s. abstained from this vote).

4) a proposed u.n. resolution earlier this year to declare israeli settlement building in the occupied territories illegal, and order a stop to their construction. the u.s. vetoed this resolution in the 2/18/11 vote.

----------------------------------------------------

http://newsblaze.com/story/201001130957 ... story.html (from Jan. 2010):

again, keep in mind the rise of neo-conservatism since the 1990s. this movement has its roots deep in the israeli hard right- wing political movement. we saw fairly dramatic evidence of this with the bush administration's iraq policy.

What motivated these (neo-con) advocates of war with a country that never attacked the U.S. and posed little threat (iraq) is the subject of a new book, "The Transparent Cabal: The Neoconservative Agenda, War in the Middle East," by Stephen J. Sniegoski, Ph.D.

The book examines the close relationship of the American neoconservatives and the Israeli Likudnik right . . . . During the l990s the neoconservatives were quite open about their goal of war in the Middle East. Sniegoski cites a l996 paper entitled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy For Securing The Realm," published by an Israeli think tank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies. Included in the study group that prepared the report were people who later loomed large in the Bush administration's war policy - Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser.

The paper stated that Netanyahu should "make a clean break" with the Oslo peace process and reassert Israel's claim to the West Bank . . . . And the study urged Israel to abandon any thought of trading land for peace with the Palestinians.

so yes, this conflict affects MANY situations and people around the world.

as always, i think a lot of the troubling phenomena surrounding middle eastern geopolitics are intertwined to a degree. it can be somewhat misleading, or short-sighted to compartmentalize these various issues too much.

[mnaz]

there were signs of hope in the '90s through very early 2000's-- most notably the oslo accords, when both sides actually showed up and talked. arafat's recognition of israel in those talks was a breakthrough of sorts. but one of the conflict's core issues, israeli settlement building, was never addressed, and went on mostly uninterrupted (and still continues).

why is the ongoing settlement building a big deal? this article offers some thoughts on it:

"Original Sin: How the Oslo Accords Enabled Continued Settlement Growth" (by Khaled Elgindy, 8 / 2 / 10)

(Khaled Elgindy is currently a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution’s Saban Center for Middle East Policy. He previously served with the Negotiations Support Unit in Ramallah as an advisor to the Palestinian leadership on permanent status negotiations with Israel, 2004 –2009).

http://muftah.org/original-sin-how-the- ... d-elgindy/

Given the Palestinians’ persistent demands for an end to Israeli settlement activity and the nearly universal international opposition to it, one might expect to find the terms of a formal settlement freeze spelled out in the Oslo Accords, the first major breakthrough in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations. Yet, Oslo made no mention of a settlement freeze—formal or otherwise—and, in fact, deferred the settlement issue altogether until so-called “permanent status” negotiations to be held in five years. Oslo’s failure to address the need for a freeze, and more importantly the PLO’s failure to codify it within the Accords themselves, remains one of the most serious and far-reaching flaws of the Oslo process—the “original sin” that continues to haunt the peace process and the Palestinian leadership to this day.

. . . settlements are incompatible with the “land for peace” formula and severely prejudice permanent status negotiations. Whereas the peace process, and the “land for peace” formula on which it is based, aim to create an independent, viable Palestinian state, the primary goal of Israel’s settlement enterprise is to alter the physical and demographic status of Palestinian territory in order to prevent its return, whether in whole or in part. As Baker himself explained in 1991, settlement expansion is a form of “de facto annexation… changing the fact[s] and circumstances on the ground in the absence of negotiation . . .

. . . settlements severely impede Palestinian socioeconomic growth and development, thereby undercutting prospects for a territorially and economically viable state. Though the actual “built-up areas“ of settlements constitute just 1.2% of the West Bank, Israel’s vast settlement enterprise—including land reserves, agricultural and industrial facilities, ‘by-pass’ roads, the ‘separation’ wall, and other infrastructure—controls well over 40% of the West Bank. Numerous studies by the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), the World Bank and others show how Israel’s settlement enterprise fragments Palestinian territory and severely restricts Palestinian access to vital land and water resources, commercial markets and social services.

. . . settlements and settlers are a primary source of instability, violence and extremism. Given these and other settlement-inspired restrictions on Palestinian life, the presence of Israeli settlements and settlers is itself a primary source of Palestinian resentment, militancy and even violence. Likewise, since many in the settler movement are themselves deeply ideological, often violently so, the propensity for extremism and violence is even greater. Extremist settlers frequently engage in violent attacks against Palestinians and their property, often with impunity. The connection between settlements and violence was firmly established in the 2001 Mitchell Report, which stated: “a cessation of Palestinian-Israeli violence will be particularly hard to sustain unless the GOI freezes all settlement construction activity.”

[the mingo]

it's not Palestinian rocket attacks - it's not Israeli settlement activity - there is no two-state solution - The Israeli's are not going to desist from the course they have set to themselves - the Palestinian are not going to give up - bloodshed will continue until one side reduces the other as close to impotence as possible - all talk that ignores this eventuality is out of touch with current reality & history - the stakes are all-or-nothing for both - the meddling of outsiders created the war but will never be able to create the peace - neither side wants or
desires peace - does no one see this? It is not hidden. It has been on view 24/7 for over 60 years - and for every one of those years countless fallacies have been entertained & countless fantasies have come & gone - death & only death will close out the play and the guns will become silent when Cain is finally crowned king.

No other outcome has ever been even remotely possible.

On the North American continent the issue was settled once & for all when the Indians lost.
That issue remains settled to this day.

[mnaz]

well ... that pretty much sums it up succinctly, doesn't it?

you might be right, but i'm having a hard time agreeing-- because your rather absolute statement here ignores that there has been progress at times in this conflict, and different phases to the conflict. remember, at first it was full-scale mechanized war by most of the arab nations in the region against israel, and we haven't seen that for quite awhile now.

and your statement ignores the effect of political leadership. prospects have not always, at every single turn of the conflict, been at total impasse, as they seem now. the decision to ignore international resolution (annex occupied territory) and subjugate / push out the people your are in conflict with is, in the end, a political choice made. but again . . . i'm 10,000 miles away, so what the hell do i know? maybe it's "the only way." palestine's version of "manifest destiny."

so yeah, maybe you're right ...

[tarbaby]

mingo wrote:

The Israeli's are not going to desist from the course they have set to themselves - the Palestinian are not going to give up - bloodshed will continue until one side reduces the other as close to impotence as possible - all talk that ignores this eventuality is out of touch with current reality & history - the stakes are all-or-nothing for both - the meddling of outsiders created the war but will never be able to create the peace - neither side wants or
desires peace - does no one see this? It is not hidden. It has been on view 24/7 for over 60 years - and for every one of those years countless fallacies have been entertained & countless fantasies have come & gone - death & only death will close out the play and the guns will become silent when Cain is finally crowned king.

No other outcome has ever been even remotely possible.

On the North American continent the issue was settled once & for all when the Indians lost.
That issue remains settled to this day.

Uncle Walter would say
"And that's the way it is,"

[Atehequa]

Have the NDNs really lost ? Maybe battles, wars and some ground, but now it's time to patiently wait while other 'Americans' do themselves in.

No Mingo, NDNs are not lost until we are no more.

[Atehequa]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qp8BSIbHv5U

[the mingo]

Mark - it was not my intent to be absolutist, it was my intent to keep the ground clear, to state what is ... this is a very difficult thing to do with words like "progress", "conflict", "solution" "peace process" "escalation" "hearts & minds" "peace with honor" "political choice" and such in the air. The Israelis & the Palestinians came to death-grips years ago and there has been no progress since and in a death-grip situation there is only one end in view for either antagonist - prevail or die - or "lose" as the case may be. Neither side can let go now & neither side will. The status quo allows bloodshed, murder, extremism, & atrocity to walk the land unimpeded.

The next step for either side is a "final solution" - a notion that haunts Israel & Israeli policy & a notion that haunts Palestinian thought if they only had the power to implement it.

The situation may yet allow it in one form or another.

Thx for taking the time to express yourself on this & I agree with you - what the hell do either of us know?

[the mingo]

Have the NDNs really lost ? Maybe battles, wars and some ground, but now it's time to patiently wait while other 'Americans' do themselves in.

Are you ghost dancing on me, Atehequa?

To be serious for a moment - yes, the natives really lost - history confirms it & even if it was a debatable point all one would have to do is look around. I say that as a mixed blood. I know only a few words of some of my ancestor's tongue and those are mostly names of things. Why is that? Because we lost. Not just battles or wars or "some ground" but all of it. What ground is left us we have not as ours to do with as we please. We lost language, culture, land, and control over our destinies...everything subject to federal oversight.

Waiting for them all to go away is a course that has failed to prove out - the real wilderness, the real country, is within us now and has been for a very long time - as my Uncle Jimmy once said, "We have an amazing headstart on everyone else, no way they can catch us now"