« My people? My nation? | Main | Trump and Darwin »

August 06, 2018

Comments

The other point I had was that Iraq and the rest of the Middle East was nasty against the creation of Israel from day one and I don’t see that changing. The Wikipedia article of Jews in Iraq is a fascinating read.

Sure some citizens of Navada might of been unhappy about it but there was money to be made and I don’t think they would have been up In arms about it.
I could be wrong about that.

I’m a fan of alternate history.
Sadly I see no solution to the current conflict.

No matter how "easy" anyone thinks it was, it probably didn't look that way at the time.

I've explicitly acknowledged that. The point is that what Israel might have felt at the time isn't what actually happened.

With the benefit of hindsight, we can see that even at the very beginning, existential fear -- though perhaps reasonable at the time given the limited information available -- was, as it turned out, unnecessary. Israel secured its early existence not with a miraculous victory against overwhelming odds, but with a perfectly mundane and unsurprising victory. One stemming directly from the fact that its actual strength was greater than the paper strength of its opponents.

I could be wrong, but it seems to me this relative margin of strength has only grown larger since.

Which means that Israel was, however it may have appeared at one time, never in any *real* danger of being swept in to the sea. And whatever that risk once was, it is in even less today, probably by orders of magnitudes.

And yet, in the present day, in this very thread, we have people claiming that Israel still has some kind of legitimate reason to fear for its existence, and that this fear justifies any abuse it may dish out to those in its control.

I think those arguments are being made on an emotional basis, with roots right down in that founding myth of miraculous victory against overwhelming odds. Of perpetual threat and hanging on only by the skin of their teeth. At least, I can't see where else they come from. Not reality.

It's a dangerous myth, no?

Menachim Begin, 1948: "The Partition of Palestine is illegal. It will never be recognized
.... Jerusalem was and will for ever be our capital. Eretz Israel will be
restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for Ever."

Reasonable thoughts?

No.

What is missing now, I think, is leadership that is actually interested in a peaceful resolution. Nobody seems to be able to imagine a way forward, at this point.

Yes.

...and the biggest one (and only one with a gun)--who is strangely named Arab Legion and is from Jordan--says he merely wants to take all of your furniture, I'm not sure we need to focus on the fact that he says he wants your furniture to the exclusion of everything else.

Well, not to quibble, but I think your analogy is missing or eliding what is actually being claimed, which is that maybe Jordan wasn't ever there to take any of "your" stuff at all.

He showed up with the others, sure, but not to invade your home. He was there to house-sit at the adjoining duplex unit, which, at least according the United Nations, was not part of your house and did not belong to you at all*, but instead to some nominal friends of his.

If true, that maybe does put a slightly different complexion on the matter.

----
* Even if you have since taken to taking over and using more and more of its bedrooms as your own, and posting armed guards in the corridors so only you and your friends can pass freely to use the bathroom and kitchen...

And yet, in the present day, in this very thread, we have people claiming that Israel still has some kind of legitimate reason to fear for its existence, and that this fear justifies any abuse it may dish out to those in its control.

I think those arguments are being made on an emotional basis, with roots right down in that founding myth of miraculous victory against overwhelming odds

I agree with this, and would only add that jack lecou's second sentence I quote above explains much more clearly what I was trying to say before. I would only add that in my opinion, Israel's continuing actions under Netanyahu, which I think all of us including byomtov deplore (to put it mildly) are what will threaten Israel's existence in the end: you cannot continue to opress another people in this way forever, in the end you pay the price. Despite its (undoubted) nuclear capacity, Israel has been sowing the seeds of its own destruction at least since the assassination of Rabin and perhaps before. It gives me absolutely no pleasure to say this, or to contemplate it. I hope I am wrong, but the change in Israeli public opinion and the moving of the Overton Window in Israel itself, with the Israelis' concommitant lack of self-insight, is unbelievably depressing.

“Jordan directly joined two separate invasions in which other countries had very high level rhetoric about destroying Israel. They didn't have to join in those two separate invasions. An invasion isn't just talk. So historians finding that at some point some of the leaders in Jordan mouthed the idea that Jordan didn't want to completely destroy Israel doesn't have much *weight* compared to the fact that the joined in on the military invasion in 1948 *and then again* in 1967. The fact that *Jordan itself* only wanted part of Israel *for itself* while joining in on an invasion that had much larger aims than just getting some land for Jordan itself suggests that the historical weight we give to Jordan's alleged aims ”

One little problem here. In 1948, Jordan never invaded Israel. It didn’t want part of Israel for itself. It wanted the part of the region assigned to the Palestinian state for itself. They fought, but quoting Shlaim again—

“ Throughout the war, King Abdullah continued to pursue limited objectives and made no attempt to encroach on Jewish state territory.”

So you could argue for saying Jordan should have stayed out, but talk of them invading Israel is false.

The 48 war was a cynical exercise on all sides. Not the morality play we Westerners were raised on.


Ok, let’s posit the duplex. He still brought the guy who wants to kill you with a knife and the guy who wants to rape your wife with him and they’ve started to try. And then after you beat them back the first time, he tried again again a few weeks later and brought them in again. Also he is bringing guys in who are invading BOTH halves of the duplex, not just the one you think his cousin might have title to...

Are you really dealing with the whole picture if you studiously avoid talking about the rapist, throat slitter, and the takeover of the other half of the duplex?

"There was plenty of federal land to offer them at a discount. Perhaps Navada would have become a Jewish State in the way Utah is the Mormon state.'

Tell it to the Bundy clan and the rest of the crypto-Christian white supremacists.

Cripes. Cliven Bundy and plenty of other jagoff Americans would be trying to raise pigs and hogs on what they think is federal land that belongs to them as an insult to the Jewish State of Nevada.

By now, and probably much earlier, if that had happened in 1948, the white nationalist republican party would be full-on Yasser Arafat anti-Semites and making Nevada Jewry the enemy Other like they have African-Americans, Hispanics, gays, and anything Left of Rush Limbaugh.

Ann Coulter, Donald mp, Fox News and the rest of insane Q-Anon crew would be flouting their political incorrectness by taunting Jews on the stage and screen and the internet and the big-haired Southern Evangelical grifters would be taking in big money predicting the apocalyptic End Times in Nevada, with lots of dead Jews in mind, because that's how they roll.

References to jackpots in Las Vegas and Reno would be divined in Holy Scripture by the legion of American right wing assholes who believe Barack Obama was the anti-Christ.

America's right wing would be even more insufferable and full of shit than it is at the present moment, given the hate merchants loosed on us by the fucking conservative movement.

Now, if you could swing a trade to move Israel to Nevada in exchange for emptying out most of the red states of their current conservative ilk and deporting THEM to Palestine, I'm all ears.

“No matter how "easy" anyone thinks it was, it probably didn't look that way at the time.”

I wouldn’t say it was easy or if I did somewhere that was wrong. Thousands of Israelis died. My point is that in actual fact, given the number of people actually fighting, it was not a miracle that Israel won. They had more men under arms than all the Arab forces actually present.

People hear about the population ratios and get the impression the armed forces number ratios were about the same and that would be a miracle given similar levels of technology. Among Christian Zionist types (Idon’t know about religious Jews) people take that miracle aspect seriously, as a sign that God is on Israel’s side.

Palestinians have no fear of being attacked if they simply quit attacking. The parody is watching 50 years of Palestinian aggression and pretending that Israel has ever attacked them unprovoked.

If we move on to discussing the complete unlikelihood of Israelis ever voting to become a minority in their country then the solution set shrinks considerably.


And, randomly, Jordan didn't just want the West Bank, it wanted the West Bank to use as a militarily superior place to invade Israel from.

I mulled over whether to reply to Sebastian’s KKK analogy. I guess I will. Notice there is no room for Palestinians in Sebastian’s house. All the property belongs to the Israelis as befits the analogy since they don’t seem to exist at all. You couldn’t even have an occupation later in the story since they don’t exist and don’t own anything and couldn’t have been victimized by the brave Israeli husband defending his wife’s honor. He has all he can handle fighting off those dastardly fiends.

There is something off about this analogy. It is almost as though Arabs don’t exist at all in any way whatsoever except as cartoon villains.

Seb,

The actual analogy would be more like this: A husband and wife living in a duplex start shooting at each other. The kids take sides as well. The Neighborhood Association gets called in and they decide to split the house up. Both sides don't like the deal. Each side asks for help....so a couple neighbors join in to help the wife half heartedly and rather ineptly, mostly with ulterior motives. The husband's side gets a lot of help from relatives abroad, and powerful members of the Chamber of Commerce. The other side gets knifed in the back and kicked out of the house.

God, enough with the stupid analogy. Analogies at their best can clarify situations. This one is just unbelievably bad. The house should be burned to the ground and the property fenced off.

Talk about what actually freaking happened. Trade atrocity accounts.

jack: Israel was, however it may have appeared at one time, never in any *real* danger of being swept in to the sea.

Donald: My point is that in actual fact, given the number of people actually fighting, it was not a miracle that Israel won. They had more men under arms than all the Arab forces actually present.

Much the same could be said of WW II. Given the relative populations, industrial plant, raw materials, etc., etc., there was no way that the United States could fail to smash Japan once battle was joined. (Even if distracted by a war in Europe at the same time.) But that doesn't change the fact that, at the time, Americans saw an existential threat from the East.

Okay, I am calm now. Going to jog in hot humid weather with a chance of thunderstorms.

But that doesn't change the fact that, at the time, Americans saw an existential threat from the East.

Yes, those Japanese subs would be right off the coast any day. There was a great deal of unfounded hysterical paranoia (cough*internment*).

On the other hand, it is not commonly believed today that the plucky little USA overcame insurmountable odds to win the war by true grit and determination.

Foundational myths can be dangerous:

"the lost cause" myth of the South's noble fight for states' rights.

"stabbed in the back" - we all know this one, I assume.

But that doesn't change the fact that, at the time, Americans saw an existential threat from the East.

Well, maybe not, but a few things that come to mind:

- IIRC, Americans widely perceived an existential threat in the 9/11 attacks. However shocking, these weren't actually an existential threat, and that was plain as day to anyone willing to give the matter a quarter second's worth of thought. One almost wonders if there is a pattern.

- I would say that the superiority of American industrial potential was apparent even to contemporaries, see, e.g., Yamamoto's sleeping giant quote. It was, I expect, an obvious eventuality which would be apparent to any intelligence analyst equipped with a modicum of economics knowledge, a slide rule, and an almanac with publicly available information like population numbers and oil and steel reserves. (I think the German command perceived this as well, and primarily rested their hopes on some combination of American isolationist tendencies, domestic fascists sympathetic to Germany, and diplomacy keeping the US out of the war, and, failing that, shipping interdiction. At least until Germany could consolidate Europe.)

- The war did indeed play out pretty much by the numbers. It was brutal, and the Japanese fought hard, but at least in our timeline, US victory was inexorable. Japan slowly ran out of things like pilots, ships and fuel, while the US kept churning them out in ever greater numbers. Maybe there's a couple of places out in the multiverse where the Japanese managed to eke out unlikely successes at critical junctures and capitalized on the openings enough to win, but that really would have been a miraculous victory. The outcome in our timeline was, just as with the Israeli version, more about math than miracles.

Well then back to the non-analogy.

Donald, "One little problem here. In 1948, Jordan never invaded Israel. It didn’t want part of Israel for itself. It wanted the part of the region assigned to the Palestinian state for itself."

I don't understand the thinking that the Jordanian military action can be neatly carved out from the overall military action. The overall military action was to carve up Israel/Palestine between the victors. Some of those victors had specifically denied that Israel had a right to exist, and were going to take different parts of it for themselves. Even if totally true (and I'm not convinced), the fact that Jordan only wanted its own Palestinian part doesn't mean that it wasn't involved in a military invasion intended for MUCH more than that. Twice.

Also I'm a bit off put by the idea that Jordan was just trying to take back what already belonged to it. If we are considering Jordan to be the Palestinian homeland, then the question of where Palestinians could be relocated to (a la WWII resettlements) is more plausible. But my understanding is that no one, and especially not Jordan, wanted that.

"My point is that in actual fact, given the number of people actually fighting, it was not a miracle that Israel won. They had more men under arms than all the Arab forces actually present."

I don't understand what you think follows from this point though. Given the population and armed forces available, the Arab forces COULD have committed enough to make winning much more likely for them. But for whatever reason the Arab countries did not actually devote enough men to make victory more likely. That is a great argument for "don't start wars you don't really want to commit to". But that's historical perspective. From Israel's perspective at the time, the exact forces were not known, the exact composition of the forces were not known, and the size of additional forces/material on their way was not known.

"The 48 war was a cynical exercise on all sides. Not the morality play we Westerners were raised on."

I'm fine with that. But treating it cynically doesn't get the Palestinians anything. Israel is currently a regional superpower. If it wants to Tibet the rest of Palestine, we can do what we did to China in response to Tibet--continue to trade strongly with them while occasionally tut-tutting. I'm not happy with that result, but it is certainly the clear eyed cynical possibility.

Jack, "Which means that Israel was, however it may have appeared at one time, never in any *real* danger of being swept in to the sea. "

I disagree. They were in a very real danger of being conquered as a nation by a ruling Arab elite that was extremely anti-Semitic and were subject to an invasion from countries that had even very recently taken a large number of nasty anti-Semitic actions. (At least if the Arab countries involved had fully committed their forces instead of half-assing it, which wasn't known at the time). I don't know what "swept into the sea" means to you, but that would fulfill my definition. If you mean that in retrospect the Arab nations didn't apply enough of the force they had available to fulfill their objectives, you're right but only in retrospect.

The only hopeful outcome I've seen with respect to such matters is Ireland. Is there any really good book or something about why the dynamic changed with Ireland? From what I was seeing, in the early 1993 there wasn't much hope for what happened by 1998. Why had the dynamic changed so much that the Omagh bombing didn't scuttle things? Is it the military/civilian thing? I know the IRA claimed to only target military/government targets, but I vaguely thought that was kind of crap. If it wasn't, I guess I can understand how the Omagh bombing rebounded against the 'real' IRA. But if that is the case the Palestinian groups aren't there.

Was it just dramatically bettered economics?

I think those arguments are being made on an emotional basis, with roots right down in that founding myth of miraculous victory against overwhelming odds. Of perpetual threat and hanging on only by the skin of their teeth. At least, I can't see where else they come from. Not reality.

Really, Jack? Those are the roots? You can't imagine why a bunch of Jews would have a fear of eliminationist violence from people who pretty clearly hate them - and did well before 1948?

You're not a very imaginative guy, are you?

There was plenty of federal land to offer them at a discount.

https://www.mintpressnews.com/the-battle-continues-to-stop-yucca-mountain-from-becoming-a-nuclear-waste-dump/213976/

Cause giving away other people's land always works out.

Really, Jack? Those are the roots? You can't imagine why a bunch of Jews would have a fear of eliminationist violence from people who pretty clearly hate them - and did well before 1948?

Yes, absolutely. I don't think American conservatives give a shit about how actual Israeli Jews felt or feel, or what the actual truth -- historical or present -- of the situation is.

On the other hand, I think the myth of heroic (always European-looking, somehow) settlers holding out against wave after wave of evil brown hordes and then miraculously turning the desert green holds a certain... appeal for certain strains of conservatism for some reason. Can't put my finger on it.

And that clearly motivates rather unproductive and unrealistic political pressures on the American side. I don't think we'd have had peace somehow already without that, but it couldn't have hurt. That myth is just not helpful.

(And it should go without saying, but whatever the fears of that bunch of Jews were in 1948, the fact remains that, 70 years on, they are no longer either justifiable, or justification for the ongoing mistreatment of Palestinians. As I think you have conceded.

Nor do I see the sense in holding Palestinians hostage to an obstinate and unrealistic demand for some ultimately meaningless statements from effectively impotent politicians in distant Arab capitals.)

“Also I'm a bit off put by the idea that Jordan was just trying to take back what already belonged to it. “

It didn’t belong to it. They were taking the land that was supposed to be the Palestinian state in that stupid UN partition which was unfair to the Palestinians. Which is another sub rant, though I may or may not get around to it.

My point was that Jordan wasn’t taking squat from Israel. Israel took land that was supposed to be Palestinian even under the UN partition. They went from the 55 percent in the UN agreement ( which was already unfair to the Palestinians) to 78 percent at the end of the war. That became the pre 67 Israel borders. Everybody was land grabbing or trying to. That isn’t the pleasing Leon Uris style melodrama we Westerners were raised on, but it was the truth. No government actually looks good here. Yes, the Arab governments or some at least used bloodcurdling rhetoric. That is on them. But actual atrocities— the Israelis committed more. I read somewhere that the Arab Legion actually prevented some Arabs from committing atrocities but I don’t know where I saw that.

Also land grabbing is one thing, but forcing people on the land to leave is something else. Morality aside, of course, it had to be done if Israel wanted the land but not all the Arabs. Way too many of them for a Jewish state. So they were forced out and not allowed back, and Jewish settlers were moved in as fast as possible. Then there was the problem of infiltrators, Palestinians trying to sneak back home. A small number were terrorists. Most weren’t. Morris says several thousand were shot in the years following 48. Others, presumably the bulk of them but I don’t know, were merely expelled.

I will repeat that I think that desperate Jewish refugees had the right to go anywhere they could. That is what keeps me from being 100 percent on the Palestinian “ side”. Ideally, we liberal types are supposed to believe in individual rights, not this national ethnic identity shit. I am oversimplifying a bit, but the point is when you start killing or expelling people or keeping out refugees ( Jewish or Palestinian) you have crossed a line. But Westerners who sit in judgement over Palestinians are just hypocrites. Our countries are the ones who should have thrown open the doors for the Jews. I think liberals in the West subconsciously atoned for their sins by scapegoating the Palestinians. Plus we now help the Israelis keep them under their boot.

“I think liberals in the West subconsciously atoned for their sins by scapegoating the Palestinians”

Misspoke there. Americans in general did this. But liberals usually claim to be opposed to oppression in the name of ethnicity and experience cognitive dissonance with Israel and the Palestinians.

Conservatives are varied. But the majority are as Jack described them on this issue.

“I hope this isn't a 'ur doing it rong' statement, but for me, works of art, like films and operas, are not really a place where discussion is going to be helped or clarified. I was trying to think of a work of art that somehow clarified a political conflict, and I'm coming up blank.”

I think this is usually true. Munich and the Klinghoffer play, though, seem to be attempts at using art to clarify a conflict and I don’t think it worked. Actually, I know little about the Klinghoffer piece so I can’t say, but the very choice of topic seems designed to get people screaming at each other.

Uncle Tom’s Cabin might be the exception. Not great literature by modern standards but it portrayed the brutality of slavery for people who might not have thought about it much.

Good counter example. thx

I read somewhere that the Arab Legion actually prevented some Arabs from committing atrocities but I don’t know where I saw that.

Wikipedia says Arab Legion troops prevented Palestinian mobs from massacring groups of Jews in Jerusalem following the city's capture, for one. There may be other instances.

Last post tonight. On solutions, we could have a debate about 1ss vs 2ss or talk about the low level of political leadership on both sides, but there is something simpler that should be done right now—

Israel should stop being so gratuitously cruel. Their blockade of Gaza goes way beyond what security needs would dictate. And they really do operate a racist system on the WB. Even if one accepted the Zionist narrative of the history, there is no reason to keep expanding the settlements and making Palestinian lives miserable.

And American politicians could point this out. Loudly. And start cutting aid.

I think I linked David Shulman before. He has been a Zionist. I think he might have a foot out the door. Anyway, when you read his New York Review articles you can see that security just doesn’t justify this crap.

https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2017/06/22/israels-irrational-rationality/

This was from a year ago. He ends with a faint hope that maybe Trump was serious about peace. That part looked pretty silly then and worse now.

2 state solution: only possible if it includes returning to something very close to the 1967 borders. (Maybe some very small tweaks at the edges.) Including Jerusalem redivided. Which is not politically possible in Israel currently -- and the demographics make it look ever less possible.

1 state solution:
Alternative A -- full rights within Israel for Palestinians. Means Israel ceases to be "a Jewish state." So that's not happening.

Alternative B -- apartheid: that it, Israel denies voting (and possibly other) rights to Palestinians. With or without forcing current "Israeli Arabs" to lose their rights -- and ignoring the question, if they keep them, of how to treat children of marriages across the divide. This looks to be where Netanyahu et al. are heading. And it pretty well guarantees Israel getting the same treatment that South Africa got.

Alternative C -- ethnic cleansing. First off, where to put them? There isn't (aren't) countries which are able, not to mention willing, to take them. And the genocide version is death for Israel in pretty short order.

The only hopeful outcome I've seen with respect to such matters is Ireland.

It's nice that the Irish found a way to temporarily paper things over, but the circumstances appear to have been vastly different.

I disagree. They were in a very real danger of being conquered as a nation by a ruling Arab elite that was extremely anti-Semitic and were subject to an invasion from countries that had even very recently taken a large number of nasty anti-Semitic actions.

As Jack and Donald have pretty much made the case for, this is totally at odds with actually existing historical circumstances, an argument you have not even tried to rebut in any meaningful way. One could just as easily claim that Palestinians were in very real danger of being conquered by a group of religious zealots imbued with a deeply held western version of
ethno-nationalism ....and in fact, this is pretty much exactly what happened.

To his credit, byomtov, at least, concedes this essential reality.

I would ask all the pro-Israeli commenters to explain why there is NOT ONE mention on their part of Israeli hatred for "arabs" or "Palestinians".

Apparently in circumstances of civil war*, only their side is exempt from such feelings.

Again...again, again...what we see today is the outcome of a civil war.

One could just as easily claim that Palestinians were in very real danger of being conquered by a group of religious zealots imbued with a deeply held western version of ethno-nationalism.

Considering how many of the Zionist leaders (not sure about the masses, but definitely the leaders) were seriously secular, it might be more accurate to call this ethno-nationalist zealotism with overtones of religion. That is, it was at least as much a political movement as a religious one.

That is, it was at least as much a political movement as a religious one.

In point of fact, in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, there were many Jews who opposed the Zionist vision from its very inception.

It seems that this was the moment in time when the possibilities disappeared.

I'm not sure about that - receded into the far, far distance is perhaps more accurate.

As Rabin demonstrated, generosity is about the only thing which might restart moves towards a peaceful settlement.
The two sides (with a few notable exceptions) have been talking past each other for decades, and both are utterly convinced of their own rectitude. I can remember attending debates in the Oxford Union over three decades ago, and the essential arguments were more or less as now, and the unwillingness to concede a single point just as today. I have sympathy with claims made by both sides - and at the same time an utter lack of sympathy for their complete intransigence.

That the power disparity between the Israeli state and the Palestinians is far greater than it was back then is indisputable, but in some respects is, I think, beside the point. Israel is a nuclear armed state which is not going voluntarily to disappear; but neither are the Palestinian dispossessed.
While Israel, for now, utterly dominates its neighbours militarily, technologically and economically, it can’t rely on that being the case forever.

The one thing which might work is generosity - which could, for example comprise a massive financial settlement for the Palestinian dispossessed, and aid (including Israeli agritech) for neighbouring states which might offer a permanent homeland. What is clear is that neither side is going to ‘win’ without either reconciling on the one hand, or unimaginable bloodshed on the other.

And trying now to adjudicate the rights and wrongs of 1948 is futile.

Jack,

Yes, absolutely. I don't think American conservatives give a shit about how actual Israeli Jews felt or feel, or what the actual truth -- historical or present -- of the situation is.

OTOH, I do give a shit. The evangelical fondness for Israel is not, IMO, "good for the Jews."

whatever the fears of that bunch of Jews were in 1948, the fact remains that, 70 years on, they are no longer either justifiable, or justification for the ongoing mistreatment of Palestinians. As I think you have conceded.

Well, I don't know that I've "conceded" that as much as I just agree with it and have for some time. There really is no justification for current Israeli policy.

I agree that the mistreatment of Palestinians under current Israeli "policy" is brutal and reprehensible and that American evangelical fondness for Israel is merely a coaxing smile, accompanied by a sniffing German Shepherd, to encourage boarding a crowded train to a nice fake Biblical reality show theme park over the eastern horizon (vee haf vays of bringing Biblical prophecy to fruition), but I've always wondered why, when Jews gather together, they are referred to as doing so in "bunches", like bananas.

Same with blacks, Hispanics, gays, Native Americans, and Muslims.

Meanwhile, Romans form themselves into armies of armored Centurions, Nazis are accorded uniformed Panzer Divisions, Schutzstaffel, and tiki torches, Stalin has his Divisions, and American fascists sneak up on us as the Silent Majority who would rather be Russians, Nazis, and Roman crucifiers than vote for Clinton and Obama and include the Other in the same subsidized healthcare the conservative cucks receive.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/ingraham-the-america-we-know-and-love-is-gone-due-to-immigration

No, you white ethnic nationalist cuck, the America we knew was gone the day you and Dinesh D'Souza misappropriated the organs of journalism at Dartmouth College to exercise your lying hate glands and began dating to (jack)boot.

Regarding mp's fantasia about asbestos, the Mob, and the downing of the Towers, he left out the eminently verifiable fact that John John Kennedy Junior, presumed dead in the small plane crash, was actually living with his wife in a concealed suite high about Manhatten in Tower 2 and the entire operation was aimed at killing him again, as in OMG, they've killed Kenny again.

He and his wife parachuted from the burning tower to an escape cigarette boat stationed in the Hudson River and they now live as prisoners in the Mar-a-Lago crawl space, along with John Lennon, JonBenet Ramsey, Soupy Sales, Rasputin, and Roy Cohn's hairpiece.

Meanwhile, the Politburo convenes on the Potomac. Devin Nunes is building a dacha in Mendocino where he rapes and sodomizes the DACA kids.

https://www.dailykos.com/stories/2018/8/9/1786972/-Russians-see-US-Senate-sanctions-bill-before-American-public-does

The 14 words:

http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2018/08/20-words

Hitler rose to power on the wings of free speech.

I've always thought that the IP debate would be more focused if it were in fact two debates: 1) the moral and legal foundation for creating a state in the first place; and 2) solutions accepting the fact of existence of Israel without questioning the founding. This thread has nipped at the edges of doing that, but not quite. The problem is the argument gets muddied if you approach both at the same time, IMHO.

On the first, we could expand on the expulsion of Germans from Poland and the Allied powers drawing lines after WWII. We could add to that the French Mandate and British Mandates writ large. The artificially-created boundaries of Syria and Lebanon from the French Mandate. And we have Iraq, Israel and Trans-Jordan from the British. Whether or not this was neo-colonialism (I think it was), the Ottomans sided with the wrong side. But we aren't talking about the other countries and their right to exist and the (sometimes quite large) Jewish populations of those countries. If the creation of Israel is unjustified, what about the other countries?

The assumption is this: The Palestinians should have been relocated to some mythical Arab nation state (and the emerging Arab states should have gratefully absorbed them as "arabs")...not PALESTINE....because there was no ARAB PALESTINE. This was a major conceit of the western powers

I think there is an argument that Trans-Jordan was in fact the Arab Palestine to begin with. It was part of the British Mandate of Palestine way back when. If memory serves, Trans-Jordan was the area excluded from Jewish settlement in what was the British Mandate of "Palestine." And then the UN started whittling down the area that was to become Israel until 1948 until it was untenable and indefensible. And then the war.

At the same time, no amount of thinking or debate is going to change that fact that Israel exists. And it isn't going anywhere. So, to me, the debate on what do do should not be clouded with whether or not it should exist. That is a separate question.


As to the second question . . .

One could argue that there has never been a better time for the two sides to talk. Alas, one side is holding all the cards, and is intent on rubbing it in.

Good point on the first sentence, if one assumes Iran isn't close to going nuclear and ignores Iranian proxies. Not sure if I agree on the second.

I don't pretend to even know where to go on the solution to the IP issue. No way Israel will go back to 1948 borders, where an occupant of the West Bank could divide the country by driving 9 miles to the sea. Not going to happen. Really not going to happen with Hamas in power.

I'd be willing to kick in a few tens of billions if it resulted in peace. Israel paid its citizens in Gaza something like 200k to relocate them, but I'm not sure if that was per person or household. Per person, a mere 362 billion (if I did my math correctly) would be the equivalent to move the Gazans elsewhere. A bit more for those in the West Bank. But say under a trillion dollars. Maybe the Arab countries would be willing to help resettle if each person had $200k attached to them.

I know, callous argument, but I don't see anything else working.

Anecdote: I just picked up a PCT hiker from Israel the other day to take him back to the trail (he was hitchhiking). Mild mannered guy. Not all that happy with the current leadership in Israel, etc. He is from northern Israel right near the border. It struck me how much of his perspective, for what I considered a pretty liberally-minded person, was colored by the question of security. I mean of course, but still.

Hitler also breathed oxygen. Free speech isn’t the problem with Nazis. It’s the hating and killing people part that’s the problem.

Maybe the Arab countries would be willing to help resettle if each person had $200k attached to them.

Ethnic cleansing, the attempt to create ethnically homogeneous geographic areas through the deportation or forcible displacement of persons belonging to particular ethnic groups.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/ethnic-cleansing

Yes, but selective oxygen deprivation therapy might thwart the march to the hating and the killing.

In a similar vein, spraying for ants before those White House picnics might be advisable.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/chris-collins-is-just-one-of-the-many-creeps-picnicking-on-trumps-lawn?via=newsletter&source=DDMorning

The republican party is like a vat of potato salad left out in the sun.

Poison.

Cleek:

To be clear, I wasn't thinking of forcible displacement. But I was reading a while back how much Israel paid its own citizens and it got me thinking about a financial solution. You obviously couldn't do it forcibly, and that wasn't my intent. I was using the Israeli example just for the price paid to calculate what that would cost. I was thinking more of the "reparations" route. But I would think that reparations coupled with a simple renunciation of the right to return would not go anywhere anyway. I wish it were so, but if it were so, that would have already happened, I think.

Ethnic cleansing: where do all us mutts go? Let's start a country where everyone is welcome, mutt or pure-bred.

Oh, wait......sort of.

(Who gets to define pure-bred?)

I just looked up "Blood Quantum" on wikipedia to refresh my memory:

Blood quantum laws or Indian blood laws are those enacted in the United States and the former colonies to define qualification by ancestry as Native American, sometimes in relation to tribal membership. These laws were developed by Euro-Americans and thus did not necessarily reflect how Native Americans had traditionally identified themselves or members of their in-group, and thus ignored the Native American practices of absorbing other peoples by adoption, beginning with other Native Americans, and extending to children and young adults of European and African ancestry. Blood quantum laws also ignored tribal cultural continuity after tribes had absorbed such adoptees and multiracial children.

Also, from Sinclair Lewis's Kingsblood Royal:

They were Dr. Brewster's congregation, enjoying their weekly gossip before the church bell should summon them in: placid and well-shaven men, wearing the kind of Sunday clothes that people do wear on Sunday; Mothers in Zion, nervously thin or comfortably buxom, talking about their sons in the service; supernaturally Sunday-neatened small boys restless in tight shoes and little girls flaunting Sunday splendor; elders with a long good life recorded in their etched faces; voluble babies who had not yet heard that they were Negroes and who assumed that they were babies.

The first quote makes me wonder, just to be fair: did the focus of some Native Americans on whether you're full-blooded or not get adopted from Euro-Americans? Or did attitudes differ among tribes?

And sorry, this is quite a wander off the main topic. But as a mutt in almost every respect, I find the notion of membership/citizenship based on "purity," of whatever variety, abhorrent and terrifying.

And yet again: mass migration in the era of climate change is going to make mincemeat of the notion of pure ethnic enclaves or nations. IMHO.

And finally, the Kingsblood Royal quote is cringeworthy in this era. But I read the book as a very young person (probably early teens) and it made a big impact on me in my little Italian-American-Catholic bubble. I have remember that line about how the babies assumed they were babies forever after.

Hitler also breathed oxygen.

Wait. You guys are oxygen breathers?!

As Rabin demonstrated, generosity is about the only thing which might restart moves towards a peaceful settlement.

And generosity was a significant part of what got the Northern Ireland peace agreement done. At least as far as I could tell from half a world away.

I think there is an argument that Trans-Jordan was in fact the Arab Palestine to begin with.

I'm not so sure about that.

It appears Palestine was carved out first, and was to contain within it "a National Home for the Jews", but the post WWI diplomacy was indeed convoluted and complex! Trans-Jordan came later, and was granted largely autonomous status.

At least that is how I read it.


“And trying now to adjudicate the rights and wrongs of 1948 is futile.”

Yes and no. It matters in that even if Palestinians are willing to settle for a 2ss, the mythological version of what happened stacks the deck against them. They start off with 22 percent of their lad being tge maximalist position.

And some are moving towards one man one vote. I don’t know how many.

“I think there is an argument that Trans-Jordan was in fact the Arab Palestine to begin with. It was part of the British Mandate of Palestine way back when. If memory serves, Trans-Jordan was the area excluded from Jewish settlement in what was the British Mandate of "Palestine." And then the UN started whittling down the area that was to become Israel until 1948 until it was untenable and indefensible”

That is the maximalist Likud position, that Jordan is Palestine. It only makes sense on the assumption that Palestinians living in their own land were being unreasonable wanting to stay there. My polite way of saying it was and is an utterly racist position adopted by rightwing Zionists.

Incidentally, the desert blooming argument was referenced by Jeff. One can talk about what Israel did with the land, but it was not a desolate wasteland when the Arabs had it. See, for instance, Meron Benvenisti’s book on that, but I don’t feel like copying text.

“And yet again: mass migration in the era of climate change is going to make mincemeat of the notion of pure ethnic enclaves or nations. IMHO.”

Yep. I don’t know if it is true, but the Syrian Civil War might in part have been triggered by drought. It might be the beginning of things to come. I think Tom Friedman said this, but it might be true anyway.

I think Tom Friedman said this, but it might be true anyway.

In a similar vein, I think Jared Diamond said it about Rwanda.


I think Tom Friedman said this, but it might be true anyway.

In a similar vein, I think Jared Diamond said it about Rwanda.

Assorted people who do complex systems analysis have suggested that the trigger for the Arab Spring was a spike in food prices caused by droughts outside MENA that decreased wheat yields. I have not looked at the details, but Egypt imports a fairly staggering amount of wheat per capita. It's been conventional wisdom for a long time that a bad year that hits any two of the big five or six wheat exporters means MENA starves. This may be the year -- things are looking poorly in all of the US, Europe, and Ukraine.

And yet again: mass migration in the era of climate change is going to make mincemeat of the notion of pure ethnic enclaves or nations. IMHO.

It’s just about conceivable that technology will keep the Middle East habitable in the coming decades - and it is, after all, one of the best situated places on the planet for large scale solar power (already deliverable below 2c per kWh). You can do a lot with abundant, cheap energy.

It’s going to take massive investment, and what would guarantee it becomes inhospitable desert is continued war.

did the focus of some Native Americans on whether you're full-blooded or not get adopted from Euro-Americans?

I believe it did.

It's interesting, we are talking about relocation, and the Trail of Tears, where the "5 Civilized Tribes", which had largely adopted white Southern culture, to the point of keeping slaves, were relocated to Oklahoma, and, when the land that they were moved to was going to be given to white settlers, the government had to determine what land was reservation land and what land was available, so the Dawes Roll was taken, which has led to problems with blood quantum for these tribes.

https://www.npr.org/2011/09/19/140594124/u-s-government-opposes-cherokee-nations-decision

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/an-ancestry-of-african-native-americans-7986049/

I normally don't post Daily Show links, but this seems apropos

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZVkLqPX6kk

The I/P conflict is not solvable by us. I am perplexed by, and against, some of our whole hearted UN support for Israel when that stance is totally unwarranted. I'm in the here and now (although majored in history, and completely am in favor of people examining history and its effect on the present day). I'm interested in post-WWII history, including the muffling of Nazi and Imperial Japanese dead-enders. There was management of people who wanted to restart the war ASAP ("possible" being far-fetched, perhaps, but think of the trouble that people who won the war thought they could have caused).

I hate the current Israeli government. We (as a voting "democracy" - at least that was somewhat true in the past) have not as much control over that as what we do now, about ourselves.

Focus, people. All y'all hate me because I was trying to say this during the Obama administration. Sorry! Next time we get a reasonable President, please:

Fight the Nazis with all you have. You want to call them Republicans? Okay: fight the Republicans with all you have.

Don't fight the less than perfect Democrats. They'll always be less then perfect. Write them letters, and complain, and quietly try to change them, whatever. But "moving them to the left" gives Putin room to "move them to Jill Stein" . Or whoever will distract them from Putin's puppet.

The I/P fight? Glenn's not going to win it, Donald.

Just reread my post. Definitely should have edited first. Sorry.

I'll continue to lay low.

“The I/P fight? Glenn's not going to win it, Donald.”

You mean Linda Sarsour, the Palestinian American woman who helped organize the pussy hat march? This issue seems to have more traction with younger people. The Forward has recently had a couple of articles about how some shadowy group is trying to intimidate BDS supporters on campus. So somebody thinks it matters.

I don’t think people should vote third party because Democrats are bad on some issues. Republicans are normally worse on issues even when Democrats are bad, third parties don’t win ( usually) and they don’t even seem to work in terms of pressure as best I can tell. But people aren’t and shouldn’t stop talking about issues because somebody might vote third party if they get mad. Also, when a reasonable President is in then you can’t talk about some issues because an unreasonable President might come in. This is a strange sort of system where we simply aren’t supposed to talk about some issues. This in a weird way is the Nader legacy— some folks like you get antsy or even angr ywhen someone even brings up an issue which the third party types might use. People like me then get angry. The third party people think this justifies going third party. Fun and rants are had by all.

As for solving it, I would settle for us not making it worse. Which we have done by reflexively supporting Israel. They know they can do whatever they want and we might or might not grumble, but they will get what they want from us. Netanyahu and bin Salman seem to have Trump on a leash, far more than Putin. I think we could stop making things worse in the Middle East. It goes against all our instincts to jump in there and start killing people or sanctioning them to the point where their lives are miserable, or arming some war criminal or other, but with great effort we might be able to restrain ourselves from pouring out our benevolence in these traditionally American ways. . We might even be able to nudge things in a slightly positive direction if we weren’t busy making things worse.

In that case, ignore mine as well. I don’t particularly want t have our usual argument.

You mean Linda Sarsour, the Palestinian American woman who helped organize the pussy hat march?

No, Donald, I meant Glenn. I said Glenn.

Linda Sarsour isn't my idol either, even though I knitted a pink pussy hat, and attended. Was it the right color? Apparently pussy hats lost favor because they were too pink. I used some yarn that was close, and what I had. I don't know what Linda thinks.

Let's leave it alone. You didn't address what I said, and it was somewhat ill-advised, and we don't like each other much. Or maybe we do in Schrödinger's world.

Wonder what color your hat was, Donald.

bobbyp:

I read it as the entire mandate of Palestine (which included modern-day Israel and what is now Jordan) was to have an Arab emirate (now Jordan, previously Trans-Jordan, or rather obviously "across the Jordan River) and a "homeland for the Jewish people." At least that was the Balfour Declaration. Then the Churchill White Paper "clarified" that a Jewish homeland would not be what was now left of "Palestine" but "within" "Palestine." Which I understand in turn led to the UN progressively carving a smaller and smaller portion of "Palestine" into the Jewish homeland.

At the end of the day, the UN resolution passed for a two-state solution because they saw back then there was no other solution. The Zionists accepted the UN plan although it was far less than what they expected and the Arabs rejected it and went on to attack to take by force what they could not get before the UN. And the British got the heck out of there.

Donald:

I'm not trying to define "Palestine," I'm simply pointing out that the League of Nations gave the British a protectorate labeled "Palestine" that included what is now Jordan, and proposed a two-state solution with Trans-Jordan being "Arab" and reserving the remainder of "Palestine" to house, at least in part, a Jewish homeland. And they decided to split the baby in part using the river.

The plan wasn't to relocate anybody, although there were restrictions preventing Jews from immigrating into Trans-Jordan and into "Palestine." But expulsions (both ways) happened anyway. Surprise, surprise.



The British didn’t have a consistent plan and they made inconsistent promises. But the whole thing was crazy and arrogant in a characteristically imperial way. Jews were a small minority in the tens and early 20’s. You couldn’t have a majority Jewish state in the region without forcing it on the natives and without transfer as they put it back then. The idea that Israel was whittled down because Jordan should have been Palestine again only makes sense if the rights of the people who were actually living there didn’t matter.

Zionism was supported by Gentile antisemites to some degree. The root problem was Western antisemitism. Zionism was the solution— let the Jews go to Palestine and then if the Arabs objected to their land being promised to foreigners by other foreigners, blame them.

I have a friend from Texas who saw my copy of Segev’s book on the Mandate period on the shelf and she said “Arabs were killing Jews back then too.” Which irritated me. The sheer smugness. Of course retorts come to mind late, but the obvious one for her, a conservative very well educated woman who, btw, voted for Bush then and Trump more recently, was to ask how Anglo Texans were treating Hispanics in that era. The answer is they were murdering them by the thousands.

Reference for last claim—

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/20/opinion/when-americans-lynched-mexicans.html

And yes, this is whataboutery irrelevant to the IP conflict, but smug conservatives like my friend irritate me.

I'm not trying to define "Palestine," I'm simply pointing out that the League of Nations gave the British a protectorate labeled "Palestine" that included what is now Jordan, and proposed a two-state solution with Trans-Jordan being "Arab" and reserving the remainder of "Palestine" to house, at least in part, a Jewish homeland.

One (but only one!) of the problems afflicting the Middle East is simply that it's a hodgepodge of ethnic groups with minimal if any relation to current political boundaries. The only real "nation-states" are Iran, Egypt, Israel (for the moment) and maybe Turkey (although the large Kurdish population, and their treatment by the majority Turks, makes that arguable). The others are artificial kludges. That applies to Palestine (however defined) as much as to Iraq, Syria, Yemen, etc., etc.

At best, you can get members of a self-defined ethnic group to agree on who they include. Getting agreement on who constitutes other groups, or even whether a particular other group is real, is far more challenging. Leaving everybody with the quite reasonable feeling that their very existance (certainly as a group, possibly as individuals) is under constant threat from pretty much everybody around them.

The implications for any Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement seem obvious. Generations of experience have taught all concerned that nobody can be trusted. Ever. Not the counterparties in an agreement. Not any "guarantors" of the agreement. Not any nominally uninvolved neighbors.

And that's totally independent of whatever, from the outside, appears to be the actual substance of the agreement. Which is a separate can of worms.

Not sure if this is an illegal download site or not, but this book may be of interest

https://epdf.tips/diasporas-concepts-intersections-identities.html

And yet again: mass migration in the era of climate change is going to make mincemeat of the notion of pure ethnic enclaves or nations. IMHO.

It’s just about conceivable that technology will keep the Middle East habitable in the coming decades

Technology is great, and it would be equally great to find better ways to generate energy.

That said, technology is not going to solve problems of the type and scale that are likely to follow from climate change.

People are going to have to learn to deal with each other. Which is to say, get along, in peaceful and constructive ways.

That, or we're going to be at each other's throats, and a lot of people are going to die.

Gonna be almost 10 billion people on the planet in 2050. That's just over 30 years from now.

Remember 1986? 1986 to now is how far away 2050 is.

If you think inequality in the US is an issue, wait until you see what inequality at global scale looks like.

Remember 1986?

Oh, yeah. I think that's the year I graduated high school. (Or was I graduated from high school? Does anyone ever say that?)

I hope I'm still around in 2050, though I may regret being around by the time 2050 gets here. (I guess "here" means "the present" in this formulation. It's almost like saying, "when 2050 becomes now.")

hsh --

In my dialect (which is of course the only correct one), I graduated from high school.

I did not graduate high school (ugggggghhhhhh!)

nor was I graduated from high school.

So there. ;-)

I usually graduate from high school, too. I'm not sure why I initially wrote it that way, but I did think about it after reading it and decided to leave it as a colorful, folksy flourish.

From Bryan Garner's Modern American Usage:

graduate, vb. The traditional idiom (dating from the 16th century) was that the school graduated the student or the student was graduated from the school. By extension (during the 19th century), a student was said to graduate from the school. (See ERGATIVE VERBS.) Those two uses of the verb are standarde, as Teall explained in the mid-20th century: "'Graduate' may be a transitive or intransitive verb. To be graduated is to be admitted to a scholastic standing or an academic degree; to graduate is to pass the final examinations, be dismissed with honor, take the degree. Many teachers ride the 'was graduated' hobby, but common usage, good literary practice and dictionary sanction may all be lined up on the side of the active [intransitive] form, 'to graduate.'" Edward N. Teall, Putting Words to Work 280 (1940).

Today the old-fashioned was graduated from is most common in wedding announcements and obituaries...[examples omitted - jm]

In the mid-20th century, usage began to shift further toward an even shorter transitive form: students were said to graduate college (omitting the from after graduate). This poor wording is increasingly common... [examples omitted again]

Garner rates "graduated" without the "from" at stage 2 of his 5 language change stages:

Stage 1: Rejected
Stage 2: Widely shunned
Stage 3: Widespread but...
Stage 4: Ubiquitous but...
Stage 5: Fully accepted.

It's only a matter of time...

...before no one remembers that you change tack, not tact, and that may and might are not interchangeable, nor are who and whom......

The amazing thing to me about who and whom is that contrary to what I would have expected -- "whom" disappearing because no one could remember when to use it -- it seems like "who" is disappearing because people are so anxious about it they overcorrect. I see "whom" as the subject of sentences and clauses all the time now. I have a collection, in fact, with links.....

Meanwhile, I revere Bryan Garner; his big fat usage book is a treat for anyone who loves words and the history of usage. And his scale of where a word or phrase is on the language change continuum is an extra special bonus.

Ah, hsh, you're nothing if not colorful and folksy.

Heh.

Many teachers ride the 'was graduated' hobby, but common usage, good literary practice and dictionary sanction may all be lined up on the side of the active [intransitive] form, 'to graduate.'"

Ending sentences with prepositions and split infinitives, also, too.

I see "whom" as the subject of sentences and clauses all the time now.

Like "and I" no matter what.

“That is the maximalist Likud position, that Jordan is Palestine. It only makes sense on the assumption that Palestinians living in their own land were being unreasonable wanting to stay there. My polite way of saying it was and is an utterly racist position adopted by rightwing Zionists.”

But this is also from a time where the great powers thought forcibly relocating 7 million German-heritage families out of the cities and homes theyd been born into in Poland was an appropriate way to reduce violent tendencies. So arguing that they couldn’t have been contemplating moving 700,000 Arab Palestinians to Jordan seems wrong. The idea of population transfers being wrong wasn’t as strongly agreed to as it is now.

The idea of population transfers being wrong wasn’t as strongly agreed to as it is now.

Maybe so, but what made the German-heritage families "German-heritage"? Were the Palestinians "Jordanian-heritage"? I'm not excusing either removal, but I'm not sure they're equivalent. (Part of the reason I'm not sure is that I don't know that much about either situation, so I'm just looking at the logic of the comparison.)

Since our way of life is non-negotiable, we will pull up the drawbridge on the global 99% (i.e. the 3rd and 4th world) and let them perish (while blaming them for it). Then our 1% will do the same on the remaining 98% of us (1% will be paid to defend against the 98% and dealt with later). Technologigal progress will make our services unnecessary to the deserving survivors. Let's hope that there will then be the equivalent to the absence of telephone sanitizers to bite them in the behind. And let their end be slow and agonizing!
In all cynical seriousness: We will have little problem to look away and we will sooner or later come to accept 'unfortunate measures' to keep the status quo (just keep them out of sight).
Some prominent RW politicians in Southern Europe already put the idea on the table to let their navies sink some North African refugee boats in front of TV cameras to deter others. Also proposed were regular raids to destroy the boats before they can depart. Those dead bodies washed ashore over here are a PR problem, the same people starving over there are not.
We may be less blunt than The Donald over here und prefer things less messy but the donkey cavity quotient is only lower in degree not in kind.

Some prominent RW politicians in Southern Europe already put the idea on the table to let their navies sink some North African refugee boats in front of TV cameras to deter others.

Are they proposing to first buy TVs for all those poor Africans, so they will be able to see the sinkings and be deterred? Inquiring minds want to know....

Since our way of life is non-negotiable, we will pull up the drawbridge on the global 99%

a cordon sanitaire, addressing not the outbreak of disease, but the inbreak of the poor and unfortunate.

best of luck with that.

at a certain point, if people have nothing else to eat, they will eat us. and i can't say i'll blame them.

there is no drawbridge.

there is no drawbridge.

Obviously we can't ask "those people" how well the Great Wall of China worked. Probably can't even countenance Googling Manchu Dynasty Origin. Among others invasions it didn't successfully stop.

But perhaps our allergy to history won't be so strong as to have us forget the Maginot Line and how well that worked....

There is an ugly parallel between the German-heritage people driven from their homes to Germany after WW2 and the Palestinians. They were not welcome as persons at all but extremly useful politically. Most political parties in Western Germany tried to recruit them as voters by promising them that they would be able to return home and get back what 'those people' took from them. Parts of the involontary exiles soon started to organize and became the 'professional displaced' (Berufsvertriebene). You may compare them to the Cuban exiles. In both cases they became reliable allies of the conservative fringe (and enemies of any policy of détente). In the countries that evicted them on the other hand they served as the seeming living proof that Germany would never give up the attempts to get back what she lost. Even the change form communism to democracy to new conservative ethno-nationalism made no difference there. Neither did the 2+4 treaty wherein Germany officially renounced once and for all any claims as the acceptable price for reunification. Now the remnants of the Vetriebenen-movement went full RW fringe and have become an embarassement even for most German conservatives. But they are as popular as poster childs for fear mongering campaigns in Poland and the Czech Repeublic as ever.
The Palestinians were as welcome in the Arab countries as the German refugees from the East in core Germany but their 'cause' was useful for the Arab elites. And today Palestinians claiming 'right of return' serve as the permanent bogeymen of the Israeli Right. That it is a practical impossibility (as it was in Germany) does not matter. "They will come, take what is rightfully yours and kick you out into the streets" still works like a charm.
Imo, if the Palestinians would suddenly stop to use violence, it would not change the situation. The Israeli RW would do everything to provoke them, claim that it is all a ruse and meanwhile proceed with the disappropriating policies. And this would get silent support from the Palestinian and Arab (and Iranian) radicals that need the absence of a peaceful solution.

“But this is also from a time where the great powers thought forcibly relocating 7 million German-heritage families out of the cities and homes theyd been born into in Poland was an appropriate way to reduce violent tendencies”

There is a reason Arendt starts “ The Origins of Totalitarianism” with a discussion of imperialism. There were mass atrocities and callous behavior comparable to the deeds of Hitler and Stalin, conducted by “ civilized” people in the 19th and early 20th Century. I don’t doubt that in the world wars the behavior of Westerners to outsiders came back home. I don’t think that one can justify the casual racist attitude towards Palestinians by pointing to the extreme brutality that occurred in the aftermath of WW2 under Stalin’s jurisdiction with the approval of Roosevelt and Churchill.

Obviously we can't ask "those people" how well the Great Wall of China worked. Probably can't even countenance Googling Manchu Dynasty Origin. Among others invasions it didn't successfully stop.

But perhaps our allergy to history won't be so strong as to have us forget the Maginot Line and how well that worked....

Whatever happens, we have got
The Maxim gun, and they have not.

Since when do refugees from starvation etc. come with tanks and fighter jets?
The old Mongols and the 20th century Germans were top notch fighting forces.
From the fringe perspective the 'problem' is that we are still too full of the milk of human kindness and have these irrational reservations against just nuking the scum preemptively.

[I seem to be in a particularly cynical mood today]

FDR, of course, wasn’t alive when it was carried out. But from what I read he approved the plan.

Also, of course, if you want to justify Palestinian expulsions this way, why not anyone’s? People who approve of such policies should be glad to hand their homes over to the Palestinians and move to Jordan themselves.
It makes sense. A Palestinian in Jordan might feel vengeful and in fact they did. A Palestinian family moved to the US is a little out of range from Israel and if it is a nice house might even feel fairly compensated. Not sure what Christian Zionists and others would do in Jordan, but it was their idea.

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-legal-team-to-guest-host-hannity-radio-show

My bartender served as the arresting officer, my attorney, and the jury in my DWAI case a number of years ago.

Give it up America.

The experiment has failed.

Faulty hypothesis. Contaminated lab rats.

We're a piece of shit.

Regarding global warming, the first order of business is deciding not whether the craven denialist filth who are burning government books full of weather data and banning all research into the matter should be killed, but how goddamned savage the executions will be.

Like hsh, the question about expulsions of the ethnic Germans had me look around a bit. Here's what I found.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_and_expulsion_of_Germans_(1944%E2%80%9350)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_and_expulsion_of_Germans_from_Poland_during_and_after_World_War_II

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_Germans_from_Czechoslovakia

From the first wikipedia page

Given the complex history of the affected regions and the divergent interests of the victorious Allied powers, it is difficult to ascribe a definitive set of motives to the expulsions. The respective paragraph of the Potsdam Agreement only states vaguely: "The Three Governments, having considered the question in all its aspects, recognize that the transfer to Germany of German populations, or elements thereof, remaining in Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary, will have to be undertaken. They agreed that any transfers that take place should be effected in an orderly and humane manner." The major motivations revealed were:

A desire to create ethnically homogeneous nation-states: This is presented by several authors as a key issue that motivated the expulsions.[45][46][47][48][49][50]

View of a German minority as potentially troublesome: From the Soviet perspective, shared by the communist administrations installed in Soviet-occupied Europe, the remaining large German populations outside postwar Germany were seen as a potentially troublesome 'fifth column' that would, because of its social structure, interfere with the envisioned Sovietisation of the respective countries.[51] The Western allies also saw the threat of a potential German 'fifth column', especially in Poland after the agreed-to compensation with former German territory.[45] In general, the Western allies hoped to secure a more lasting peace by eliminating the German minorities, which they thought could be done in a humane manner.[45][52] The idea to expel the ethnic Germans was supported by the Winston Churchill[53] and Anthony Eden since 1942.[54]

Another motivation was to punish the Germans;[45][47][50][55] the Allies declared them collectively guilty of German war crimes.[52][56][57][58]

Soviet political considerations. Stalin saw the expulsions as a means of creating antagonism between the Soviet satellite states and their neighbours. The satellite states would then need the protection of the Soviet Union.[59] The expulsions served several practical purposes as well.

To argue that there was also a desire to do so in the Palestine mandate suggests that only the first reason was operative for the Allied powers and ignores all of the other reasons that ethnic Germans were moved.

The page on Poland has this

The waves of expulsions after the Potsdam conference must also be seen in the context of the contemporary, likewise unorganized, resettling of displaced or homeless Poles. Polish settlers, who themselves had been expelled from areas east of the Curzon Line, arrived with about nothing, putting an even higher pressure on the remaining Germans to leave.[88] For the Germans, the Potsdam Agreement eased conditions only in one way - because now the Poles were more confident in keeping the former eastern territories of Germany, the expulsions were performed with less haste, which meant the Germans were duly informed about their expulsions earlier and were allowed to carry some luggage

and the page on Czechslovakia points out that attitudes hardened in Czechslovakia after the reprisal for the assassination of Heydrich, which included the arrest of 13,000 Czechs of which an estimated 5000 were murdered and the execution of all the inhabitants of the Czech villages of Lidice and Ležáky.

Furthermore,
On July 27, 1945, the Ministry of National Defence issued a secret order[which?] directing that the transfer should be carried out on as large a scale as possible and as expeditiously as possible so as to present the Western powers with a fait accompli.[28]

This is not to take the line that the expulsions were defensible (two links below, the second one has color pictures that are not for the squeamish

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/rm-douglas/expulsion-germans-forced-migration_b_1625437.html

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/a-time-of-retribution-paying-with-life-and-limb-for-the-crimes-of-nazi-germany-a-759737-3.html

but to say that well, if they did it to the Germans, they must have been contemplating doing it to the Arab Palestinians seems a bit too loose imho. I suppose contemplating could be like Jeff saying why didn't we move all the Jews to Nevada and one can cite that Churchill and Eden both approved of the policy, but Churchill always had a soft spot for ideas that didn't always go as planned (Gallipoli, the 1920's RAF bombing campaign in the Middle East, Operation Habakkuk) So I'm not sure why you say that the array of Arab armies against Israel is not important, but some 'contemplation' of population transfers in the British mandate by the Western powers is. Plus the fact that the UK and US refused to accept Jewish refugees in the run up to the war and didn't really take the idea of German death camps seriously until they were actually liberated. If you argue that population transfers were [seriously] contemplated, you have to argue that the Western powers actually wanted to do something for the Jews. Given the relationship between Irgun and British authorities, I can't imagine them thinking they wanted to do anything to help the Jewish refugees coming to Palestine.

Still, I'm glad that you prompted me to do some googling about this, cause I learned some stuff. This link has the following

But for the victors’ calculations to be understood entirely, we actually have to turn back the clock even further, to the end of World War I. Woodrow Wilson arguably bears as much responsibility as Stalin, Churchill, Roosevelt and Czechoslovakia’s president, Edvard Beneš, for the postwar spree of ethnic cleansing. In 1918, the remnants of the multinational Habsburg and Ottoman empires were carved into sovereign nation-states, in accordance with the Wilsonian ideal of “national self-determination.” As Hannah Arendt perceptively argued, the world stood convinced in 1918 that “true freedom, true emancipation, and true popular sovereignty could be attained only with full national emancipation, and that people without their own national government were deprived of human rights.”

This puts, at least for me, the Zionist project in a clearer perspective and explains why what probably seemed like an daydream pre-war would become such a driving force after the war.

Also, the New Republic review of R. M. Douglas’s Orderly and Humane: The Expulsion of the Germans after the Second World War

https://newrepublic.com/article/102925/orderly-humane-expulsion-germans-richard-evans

which has some interesting information about the political power of those expelled in postwar Germany, which Hartmut underlines the darkside

Astonishingly, however, the millions of ethnic German expellees, far from becoming a disruptive element in postwar West German society, integrated seamlessly into it within a few years. Of course the vast majority were angry and resentful and desperate to return to their former homes, and the pressure-group they founded, the Bund der Heimatvertriebenen und Entrechteten (literally the League of People Driven from their Homes and Deprived of their Rights) soon began to exert an influence in West German politics. But West German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer cleverly took the wind from its sails by raising a new tax, the so-called Lastenausgleich, to compensate the expellees for their losses, setting up a special ministry to deal with them, and giving them eligibility for social insurance.

In foreign policy Adenauer vociferously demanded the return of the territories annexed by Germany’s eastern neighbors and insisted on the expellees’ right of return. He realized that these demands were unrealistic, but he persisted with them because he knew they won him the expellees’ political support. Massive propaganda underlining their sufferings helped create a feeling of sympathy among West Germans and aided integration. Above all, however, the so-called “economic miracle” in West Germany gave them, in little more than a decade, a much better material life than they had ever enjoyed before. Initially housed in camps, including former Nazi concentration camps, they were given help by the churches (whose role is underestimated by Douglas) and by the state, and benefited from the massive program of homebuilding. By the early 1960s their unemployment rate had fallen to little more than the average in West Germany as a whole.

Earlier, it was noted that what seemed to be lacking in the IP problem was leadership, and I have to wonder who could have possibly done what Adenauer did. Abdullah of Jordan proposed a United Arab Kingdom with two states, but it was rejected by all sides.

Whatever happens, we have got
The Maxim gun, and they have not.

If it were that simple, it would hardly be worth discussing.

...before no one remembers that you change tack, not tact, and that may and might are not interchangeable, nor are who and whom......

Completely off-thread (as usual - sorry, sorry!), my particular bugbear (and recently used on this very blog) is flaunt for flout and vice versa. Also slither for sliver (possibly due to the influence of Jamie Oliver), disinterested for uninterested (now at 3 or 4 on the Garner scale, at least in the UK) and many more. Having said that, I don't think I'm too clear on the difference between may and might.....

I thought of a possible improvement to my plan. Take the homes of Texas Christian Zionists and give to the Palestinians as before. But don’t send the the Texas Christian Zionists to Jordan. There are 49 other states plus Canada where people speak approximately the same language, but keep it simple and send them to Oklahoma. Oklahoma is Texas.

The problem is that the intransigent Texas Zionists might start launching terrorist attacks on the state of Palestine in Texas.

So we are back to sending them to Jordan.

Assorted people who do complex systems analysis have suggested that the trigger for the Arab Spring was a spike in food prices caused by droughts outside MENA that decreased wheat yields.

The US, being the elephant that it is, steps on everybody, intentionally or not. Google returns over 324 thousand links for the pairing of ethanol and "Arab Spring."

"Complex systems theorists say that a combination of deregulated markets, commodity speculation, and food-to-fuel ethanol policies are the direct cause of the spike in food prices that led to the Arab Spring and the civil war in Syria."
Commodity Traders Helped Spark the War in Syria, Complex Systems Theorists Say: New math shows that financial speculation caused the spike in food prices that led to war.

Hairshirtthedontist: "Maybe so, but what made the German-heritage families "German-heritage"? Were the Palestinians "Jordanian-heritage"?"

That is one of those line drawing problems that becomes so vexing. Neither Jordan nor Palestine existed when the borders were being drawn, so they weren't Jordanian-heritage per se. But did they have a similar heritage as what we now call 'Palestinians'? Yes. And no. It depends on how you want to draw the lines. Are Shiite and Sunni Iraqis from the same heritage? Yes, and no. Modern day Palestinians in general are closer to modern day Jordanians than they are to Egyptians. They are closer than Lebanese and Syrians (who are pretty close) but also share a lot with both of those. The question "did people identify as Palestinian at the time" is similarly annoying because they did, but it was more like how San Diegans identify--a regional identification less than California or the United States.

"Also, of course, if you want to justify Palestinian expulsions this way, why not anyone’s?"

It isn't a justification. Its an explanation of the mindset of the time. The powerful countries at the time looked at the map between Germany and Poland and said "this much is Polish and this is Germany" and then they forcibly moved 7 million no-more-or-less-innocent people than the Palestinians to Germany to reduce ethnic strife in support of those borders (and many hundreds of thousands the other way into Poland). At essentially the same historical moment, they were drawing borders and dividing people up in the Middle East. Arguing that they couldn't have meant for 700,000 at-the-time-Arabs-living-in-Palestine to be assigned and probably moved to what they were creating as Jordan seems silly considering that the same regimes moved 7,000,000 out of Poland to reduce what they saw as ethnic tensions.

Was that a fantastic moral decision? No.

But in the context of such decisions, it isn't shocking. The right of return to Poland, or Hungary, or the Czech Republic (all from European expulsions contemporaneous with the founding of Israel) has been effectively extinguished as causing more trouble than the fantasy is worth.

Oops I changed who I was responding to there, the second quote is Donald. I knew that, but it should have been clear in the commented text. Sorry about that.

The problem is that the intransigent Texas Zionists might start launching terrorist attacks on the state of Palestine in Texas.

There's already a Palestine in Texas.

If it were that simple, it would hardly be worth discussing.

To the contrary. People believing it to be that simple are the ones keeping up the discussion [/snark]

Since when do refugees from starvation etc. come with tanks and fighter jets?

My point, obviously poorly made, was that walls have ends. And people who can't get thru them will end up going around.

In the context of what Hannah Arendt described— imperialist attitudes towards non Western peoples with those attitudes migrating back to Europe— it isn’t shocking.

My point all along is that within the US and to a lesser degree Britain, the IP story is usually told from a viewpoint heavily weighted against Palestinians. That doesn’t mean the Arab side or even the Palestinian side is innocent. “ The Sacred Landscape”, a book I recommended is very critical of the Palestinian elites. But he also shows how Palestinian villagers, some living in villages who had nonaggression pacts with their Jewish neighbors, got royally screwed over, expelled for no reason at all except to get rid of them.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Your Information

(Name is required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)