The Lost Comments

Remember this thread ? well here are the hidden comments ; I've left the ones which are on topic and removed the personal stuff !


Non-Blogging said... Maybe we should just stop caring about Palestine and let Israel crush them? Is that it?
No, that's not the solution. The solution for everybody who is an outsider is to do what I think I've argued in this blog before - stop paying too much attention to the crisis where both parties are involved in ugly things, readily break international law and use outsider media as their propaganda tools. I repeat: both parties. We shouldn't forget Palestine but we should let Palestinians and Israelis come to their senses on their own. We outsiders should concentrate our efforts on places where the efforts one day might bring fruits.
Pro-Israeli outsiders should stop treating Israel as a case apart. It's just a country, heck, not an objectively taken Holy Land. And neither is Israel the most criminal state in the world as ranters like the one in Highlander's link think about. Israel is not a true Western democracy yet most of those who spread conspiracy theories should also come to their senses and clean their own backyards first (Darfur, Western Sahara etc.).
Just carry on like the international community - look the other way - I might just do that.
I don't have any statistics to prove my claim but I'm quite sure Israelis and Palestinians are better backed financially per capita than any other nations in the world. The world doesn't look the other way, instead it pays too much attention to that small piece of land and forgets about the rest.
Kidnapping soldiers from across borders is illegal. The Israeli reaction including bombing electricity out of Gaza is an excessive reaction to that which has a nasty toll on civilian outsiders and thus unacceptable.
However, as someone in the military reserve myself, the idea that IDF does so much to bring their boys back home is inspiring. If I were kidnapped by the enemy, I'd love the idea that my troops would do their outmost to get me back alive.
I guess I promised this before (and broke it perhaps), but this time I'll now stop commenting on the Israeli/Palestinian crisis in this length. I've simply nothing to add. Let the participants solve their problems as they best wish, if they wish that at all.

Wed Jul 12, 10:42:15 PM 2006
programmer craig said... Wow! Controversial is right! Those are the most.... erm.... controversial!!... claims about Palestinian rights and Palestinian history I've ever seen!
their fictional ancestry to lay claim to Palestinian land and Palestinian prophets.
Somebody on that Alarabonline site apparrently cannot read, no?
I will endeaver to help :D
Prophets "stolen" by Jews first!
According to scripture, Ham was one of Noah's sons and settled in Egypt. Ham's sons were named Mizraim, Kush, Canaan, and Phut.
Canaan is considered the ancestor of the modern Palestinians, in scripture. In fact, the earliest known use of the word "Canaan" is in Hebrew scripture some 6000 years ago.
In scripture, Ham did his father Noah a great wrong (which I won't get into) and Noah cursed his son Canaan to be the servants of his uncles (Ham's brothers) Shem and Japheth.
Whatever the validity of all that.... from that point forward, the descendants of Canaan become outcast and seperate from all the descendants of Noah.
The sons of Noah and the Nations they founded:
* Ham, forefather of the southern peoples (Hamitic Africa)
* Shem, forefather of the middle peoples (Semitic Arabia)
* Japheth, forefather of the northern peoples (Japhetic Europe)
Ham's sons:
Kush, supposedly the ancestor of black african tribes.
Mizraim, supposedly the ancestor of Egyptian peoples.
Phut, supposedly the ancestor of Libyan (berber?) tribes.
Canaan, supposedly the ancestor of Palestinians.
The Israelites (and the Arabs via Ishmael) are not the descendants of Ham. They are the descendants of Shem.
Therefore, I think the argument that Israelites stole "Palestinian" prophets is ridiculous on it's face. Noah was the first Prophet in scripture, and no Prophet after him was ever descended from Canaan. This claim is patently absurd, and completely unsupported in any version of scripture.
I'll address the ancestral lands in the next comment.
Wed Jul 12, 11:01:53 PM 2006 programmer craig said... a few isolated patches of their ancestral land.
There's two ways to look at this. Scripturally and Historically. Although most (nearly all) of the ancient history of the region is based on scripture, so it gets confusing.
Most biblical scholars say the Phillistines are one and the same with the Canaanites, and that they are the ancestors of the Palestinians. That's going to be my baseline assumption too.
Exodus 13:17
Then it came to pass, when Pharaoh had let the people go, that God did not lead them by way of the land of the Philistines, although that was near; for God said, "Lest perhaps the people change their minds when they see war, and return to Egypt."
The land of the Philistines was close to Egypt, and it was in between the Israelits and the promised land. Not IN the promised land. Because surely God would not have lead the Isrealites around the land of Philistines, in order to lead them right back to the land of the Phillistines, no?
What's betwen ancient Egypt and ancient Israel, drawing a strait line on a map?
Northern Sinai.
I therefore posit that Northern Sinai is the ancestral home of the Palestinians. Not Israel.
Exodus 13:18
So God led the people around by way of the wilderness of the Red Sea. And the children of Israel went up in orderly ranks out of the land of Egypt.
Moses wouldn't have had to part the red sea, if God had been willing to lead the Children of Israel through the land of the Philistines! They could have walked across Sinai on dry land!
OK, now the historical argument. SOme historians represent the Canaanites and the Philistines as being seperate people. They say the Philistines (meaning "sea people") were invaders, and didn't originate in that land at all. I don't put much stock in this, because the area the Romans called "Philistia" on their maps was what is today called the Gaza strip. The Gaza strip is also where the tribe the Israelites waged war on (that they called canaanites) lived. So, I think historians are pretty spotty on this issue, but I'm willing to take up the historical arguments if somebody wishes too.
Can we all at least agree that Moses lead the ISRAELITES out of Egypt some 3300 years ago, not the Canaanites? So regardless of who was on those lands, Israel is the land promised to the Israelites by God, and that it's been THEIR land (promised by God no less) for at least 3000 years?
Promised land or not, the land has been recorded as the land of the Israelites since Pharoah Mernepteh, the son of Ramses II. Good luck to anyone who wants to stake an ancestral claim older then that, because it's sheer guesswork.

Wed Jul 12, 11:29:01 PM 2006
programmer craig said... NBA, I totally agree with you. I resolved some time ago not to take sides or even particpate in the debate on the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. There's nothing I can do to make things better, and anything I try to add will make things worse for somebody.
I've had a great deal of trouble sticking to that, though. Israel is an ally of the United States, and has been since Nixon declared it was so back in 1973 as part of the Cold War conflict. My country (it's policies and it's people both) are under constant attack from Palestinian side of the debate, and I've been insulted personally on a number of occassions by Palestinians and/or their supporters. Also, I have friends who died as a result of being percieved as helping Israel in Lebanon in 1983, even though they were part of an international peacekeeping effort.
The issue keeps popping up in my life, wheteher I want it to or not. Ignoring it doesn't seem to be an option for me. And trying to be neutral doesn't seem to be an option for me either. I've gotten hammerred for doing no more than stating the obvious in the past, and I'm sure I will be again. I think the issue has to be resolved, no matter how many people suffer, and no matter what the outcome. It's a thorn in the side of the whole world. We all suffer. And I condemn to hell the people who make it so. The world doe not revolve around a minor territorial dispute on a small piece of land. There are a hundred more pressing issues that get no attention at all.

Wed Jul 12, 11:53:53 PM 2006
Maya M said... Highlander, you recently wrote to me, "If by invasion you mean immigrants of North African Arab descent in Europe, then the ones causing trouble are 3rd generation and they have become citizens of that country..."I don't agree entirely, as far as I know, most Arab immigrants came to Europe during the last 30 years; in fact, many French rioters turned out to be illegals, i.e. protesting against being discriminated in a country where they were not presumed to be at all, but this is another matter.What is relevant now is, Why do Arabs always use the argument "here for generations" when talking about Arab minorities in Europe but never when talking about Jews in Israel? Even some Jewish settlers in Gaza had lived there longer than many Arab civil right fighters in Europe.I had some expectations that Palestinian negotiators would offer Jewish settlers to remain in place. "If they pledge loyalty to the future Palestinian state and agree to have all the rights and obligations of Palestinian citizens, they can remain. Of course most of their current property will be confiscated, it is not fair the majority to be landless while a small group of people possesses most of the land... They will be compensated of course - as much as our scarce funds allow... And they will have to observe the norms of our Islamic society..."Of course no Jewish settler, as long as his brain is in place, would accept this kind offer, so why didn't the Palestinians propose it? I guess, because they hold their uncontroled xenophobia as national pride and would consider any step back a humiliation.Need we talk about the ancient history of Israel? It is very well documented that this land was inhabited by Jews. The current conflict is between people driven out long ago who returned and those who had meanwhile taken their place. There is at least one other country with the same problem, Liberia. But who cares about Liberia? Palestinians, as always, consider themselves unique.What is frequently forgotten is that many Israeli Jews are of Mideast origin. Arab countries protested (and some waged wars) over the appearance of Israel on the map, but very conveniently used it as an opportunity to get rid of their Jewish minorities. (A feature of Muslim Arabs that worries others is their tendency, while demanding full rights when they are a minority, to pursue ethnically clean society at any cost when they are a majority. How do you imagine Danish immigrants being allowed to settle in an Arab country? It would be easier for them to settle on the Moon.) So what would otherwise arguably be considered an invasion by Jews on Arab land turned into an honest-looking "population exchange" deal. If you unroot your indigenous Jews and deport them to Israel, you lose the right to claim that Israeli Jews are unwelcome European guests and must go back where they have come from.

Thu Jul 13, 02:59:32 PM 2006
redENCLAVE said... Maybe we should just stop caring about Palestine and let Israel crush them? Is that it?Well, if you allow both parties to kill one another, than who will be grinning at the other end of the world? We can't allow this to happen. I know it is difficult, maybe impossible for both to find a solution due to our belief & history & I might add, hatred towards one another for the obvious reasons.
However, I'd like to add something here, I believe the Palestinians are very bright & courageous people. In more ways than one!

Thu Jul 13, 06:57:57 PM 2006
Adam said... Considering the percentage (65% aint it?) of eligible US voters that actually care to vote, I would not call the population particularly politically interested. Unlike Craig, I am not all that sure that US Goverment policies always reflect public opinion. Or perhaps public opinion shifted overnight on for example Guntanamo, an issue where the White House did a recent U-turn.
What I see in this conflict, is human suffering. Both (military) sides can be claimed to be wrong, and innocent people suffer on both sides, but the amount of suffering, by innocent unarmed citizens, is much much higher on the Palestinian side. We could do a cold body count for one thing, or we could ask ourselves: what just cause is achieved by cutting fresh-water supplises or destroying olive plantations? Reducing human suffering does not seem to be on top of the US agenda.
During the rule of Yitzak Rabin, there was a funtioning peace process. This was in the late 90's I think. And as a matter of fact there was not a single, not a single, terror act for two years. That ended after an Israeli murdered Rabin.
It is my firm opinion that the end of that peace was triggered as a consequence of a shift in Israeli policies. And yes if human suffering was high on the US agenda, presure would influence Isreali policies.

Thu Jul 13, 08:56:04 PM 2006
Adam said... Maya M,
Europe does have a rich Arabic heritage. And it goes back a lot more than the 30 years you mention.
As early as the 8th century Christians, Jews, and Arabs lived peacfully together in Granada. The latter two "gloriously" butchered (well sort of) by Ferdinand III of Castile in 1232.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Granada

Thu Jul 13, 09:30:51 PM 2006
programmer craig said... Adam, you are using the muslim invasion of Spain as an example of peaceful co-existance!? :O
Or perhaps public opinion shifted overnight on for example Guntanamo, an issue where the White House did a recent U-turn.
There was a spureme court ruling that the White House is obligated to comply with. It has nothing to do with public opinion. Not really sure what your point is, could you clarify?
A majority of Americans DO support Israel. That's a simple fact.
Adam, you seem like a smart guy. What's the percentage of Americans you see on blogs that pick Palestinians over Israelis? The polls show over 60% of Americans support Israel, with about 30% "neutral" and less than 10% siding with Palestinians. That's what I see on blog comments too. Do you see something different?
I realize you're not American, but you can at least look at what people say on blogs, no?

Thu Jul 13, 11:23:08 PM 2006
Adam said... Craig,I take back my remarks on Guantamo, they were pointless.
And I will try to express myself with a bit more precision.
Sure, Americans feel more sympathy towards Israel than the Arab world. I will not deny that. But does that automatically mean that they support all Israeli actions? Yes? And is that equally true in Texas as in NYC? I doubt it.
But please let me ask. In your very own opinion, what good goal is achieved by cutting fresh-water supplies and destroying olive plantations? ( Yes Highlander, I remember ;] ) And do you feel that the recent Israeli Gaza offensive was in reasonable proportion to one captured soldier?
Now if you thought of replying "What good is achieved by blowing up students in Tel Aviv cafés?" you have my answer: "None. None whatsoever."

As for Granada, yes, Arabs invaded it. After that Christians, Jews and Arabs were living there peacefully for 500 years. Then the Spanish king expelled all Arabs and Jews. (The Arabs didn't) And, my point was not the peacfulness. The point was 1300 years, in reply to Maya's 30 years.

Fri Jul 14, 01:45:25 AM 2006
AlanK said... highlander
well I agree that the author is controversial, also a little angry and bitter. She does make some good points
eg for instance the isreal response now does not seem to be improving things, especially targeting militants in civilian areas. Although what else could have been done not entirely sure about, imagine the reaction if isreal has began negotiations for corporal shalit and then hezbollah had kidnapped more soldiers
one thing that seemed to be a little confusing, the author seems to be advocating hamas line, that palestinians should not except the existance of isreal, judging by the quote below
"What the world is offering the Palestinians is a deal they are obliged torefuse – even at the point of Israel’s murderous war machine. They are beingasked to legitimize their own dispossession as the price of livingunmolested ona few isolated patches of their ancestral land."
As for the opposite arguement, basically accepting isreal could possibly be the start to negotiations hopefully leading to an end to the chaos. Both sides need to work together in this, after all it takes 1 to make war and 2 to make peace.
Actually a little suspicious about the timing of the kidnappings, just when mahmoud abbas was about to show that palestinians support negotiated peace. Seems that those opposed to peace are getting desperate now, also with the hezbollah kidnappings not helping either, triggering the isreali response to try to stop this happening.
highlander what is your opinion on this

Fri Jul 14, 02:25:51 AM 2006
AlanK said...
[..]also programmer craig, you make good point about the claim, "we were here first".
If that is true, here in the UK would have almost no people as there has always been large amounts of migration, conquests etc. what matters for now, is now, although I have to admit that this can be a fustrating and unfortunate principal to accept at times, but if you dont, then you end up with what we have now in isreal/palestine.

adam
I agree with you on the guantanamo bay issue, just sad that it took the courts to bring about this change and not desire of the goverment to do something about this.