Palestinians and the American Indian

[NorthSideSox72]

I just got back from spending a week in the wilderness of Wyoming and Colorado. For those who haven’t done that sort of thing, when you get out there in the wild, you start to become a lot more thoughtful of those who lived in that wilderness for generations. You think about how those tribes (in the case of this area, the Cheyenne and Yampa) survived and even flourished, in a seemingly inhospitable environment. And you imagine what their world was like, before and after the arrival of the white eye.

 

When we came out of the mountains, and arrived at the hotel to clean up, the news was blaring of the suddenly increased tensions in the Middle East (as discussed in multiple threads). Sort of a rude awakening from our peaceful saunter. And while this particular flare-up is mostly between the Iranian-backed Hezbollah and Israel (as opposed the Palestinians as a group), it got me to thinking about how similar the Palestinians and the American Indians really are.

 

The broad-stroke parallels are many and obvious. Both have been repeatedly beaten down by occupying forces. Both used guerilla tactics, provoked and unprovoked, as a means to fight (and in both cases, it was actually only a minority of the population who took up arms). Both are looked at as second class citizens by the nations that occupied their pervious territory, not worthy of negotiation or respect. They both adapted to adverse terrain in order to survive.

 

As sure as there are parallels, there are also key differences. For one, the Jews that are now Israelis can stand on having controlled that territory at a previous time. The Europeans and Americans who marched across North America under the manufactured banner of Manifest Destiny did not have such a legitimate claim. Time frame is also critical, of course. The global community is significantly less tolerant of violence in general now, and certainly of both terror tactics and military aggression, than it was a couple hundred years ago. And it is certainly true that much of the land Israel occupied after the 1973 (or was it ’67? I always forget) war with Egypt and Syria, nominally Palestinian-occupied, was taken as a defensive buffer after being attacked by aggressive forces.

 

So let us apply some of the currently purveyed arguments on both sides of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to the battles between America and the AmerInd groups. Bush’s favorite line is, “Isreal has a right to defend herself.” That’s pretty hard to argue against. Did the farmers and settlers in the American west have a right to defend themselves against Indian raids and violence? I think the answer to both is yes. But equally important, what about the fact that the Palestinians and the Indians both held legitimate claim to the lands that the Israelis and Americans effectively stole? Is one more legitimate than the other? I don’t believe so. I think they both rightly claim that they were forced off their land, repeatedly, with little recourse. So what tactics would have been OK for the native groups to employ? For that matter, which ones did they even have at their disposal? Terror and raiding parties appear to have been their only military option. And what about the idea of setting up a Palestinian nation-state, broken into multiple units around the territory they once solely occupied? Sounds a lot like the reservation system, doesn’t it? Suddenly the vilified Dawes Act looks like it has a twin brother in the Roadmap to Peace.

 

Now, I am not saying these conflicts are exactly identical. But I think that they indeed are very much alike. And along that vein, I would theorize that some years from now, we may look at the Palestinian people in a similar light as we do the American Indian peoples. One can only hope that the picture at that time for the Palestinians is not quite as bleak as the current image of the Native American.

 

Discuss.

 

P.S. I want to reiterate that I am not speaking here about the Iran-backed Hezbollah forces in Lebanon. That is an entirely different animal… perhaps more like the French-Indian War.

[sti3]

Israelis stole their land? I thought it was given to them for that stuff they endured at the hands of the Germans.

[NorthSideSox72]

Israelis stole their land? I thought it was given to them for that stuff they endured at the hands of the Germans.

Correct. I'd say the land was stolen by the people responsible for creating the state of Israel to being with, which was catastrophic for the region and is the primary reason that things have been so ugly there for the last 50 years.

[StrangeSox]

Israelis stole their land? I thought it was given to them for that stuff they endured at the hands of the Germans.

 

Read up on the creation of the Isreali state; Jews used plenty of terrorist tactics in the early 20th century to pressure the British into turning over the land for a Jewish homeland.

[sti3]

Correct. I'd say the land was stolen by the people responsible for creating the state of Israel to being with, which was catastrophic for the region and is the primary reason that things have been so ugly there for the last 50 years.

hmm, so kind of like high-rise public housing, it was a well-intentioned blunder? You could be right. I've heard people glibly say "They should have given the Jews Bavaria."

[WCSox]

Correct. I'd say the land was stolen by the people responsible for creating the state of Israel to being with

 

That would be the U.N., correct?

 

The decision to put Israel right smack in the Holy Land (including Jerusalem) was not a wise one. They should've expected these problems.

 

That said, the Israelis have gone out of their way to give a significant amount of this occupied land back to the Palestinians in an effort to reach some sort of peaceful coexistence. And the militant Palestinians have decided that they will settle for nothing less than complete Palestinian control of the land "from sea to sea." That is one key difference between their situation and ours with the Native Americans.

[CanOfCorn]

One question...and I don't know the answer to it...

 

Why don't the other primarily Islamic countries give a piece of their country's to the Palestinians? Or even just absorb them into their country's by giving them automatic citizenship?

 

OK, that's two questions...sorry.

[WCSox]

One question...and I don't know the answer to it...

 

Why don't the other primarily Islamic countries give a piece of their country's to the Palestinians? Or even just absorb them into their country's by giving them automatic citizenship?

 

OK, that's two questions...sorry.

 

Because that solution wouldn't include the annhialation of all Jews from the Middle East.

 

The Islamic countries want the Arabs to control Jerusalem.

[Soxy]

And the militant Palestinians have decided that they will settle for nothing less than complete Palestinian control of the land "from sea to sea." That is one key difference between their situation and ours with the Native Americans.

Well, give the Isrealis some malaria blankets and just wipe 'em out, worked for us!

 

Manifest destiny baby!

 

Despite my glib comparisons I think it's a very interesting and compelling argument NSS.

[jackie hayes]

Just, no. First of all, Manifest Destiny was the idea that America had a divine mission to expand across our continent; it has nothing to do with European colonization of the Americas. Now as for the supposed parallel -- while the Native Americans were clearly defined nations/peoples, it's hard to argue that about the Palestinians. There were a significant number of Jews in Palestine, originally, who were very much pro-Israel. And the fractured nature of the population makes it hard to say that there was a right to the land -- whose right? And while you admit that the land was taken as a "defensive buffer", you fail to mention that it was taken in response to an attack on Israel by the countries that controlled those areas (there was no 'state of Palestine' that Israel overran). That's war -- if you use something against me, or if you can, I'm gonna do something to neutralize that advantage. Hardly "Trail of Tears" type stuff.

 

Finally, I don't know how you can seriously compare explicit exploitation for economic reasons, under a "manufactured banner" of bringing Christianity to 'heathens' (not MD, but okay), to a claim of landright that dates back millennia. Just, no similarity at all, none.

[vandy125]

I think that Israel's claim to the land is much older than the Palestinian's claim is.

 

That is the key difference that I see in the comparison. In one case, it is a group of people returning to their land that they had thousands of years ago. In the other case, it is a group of people taking over land that they never had a claim to before.

 

This is an interesting little read about some of the history. I would be interested in seeing other sources that people run across with it:

http://www.science.co.il/Israel-history.asp

 

 

Just, no. First of all, Manifest Destiny was the idea that America had a divine mission to expand across our continent; it has nothing to do with European colonization of the Americas. Now as for the supposed parallel -- while the Native Americans were clearly defined nations/peoples, it's hard to argue that about the Palestinians. There were a significant number of Jews in Palestine, originally, who were very much pro-Israel. And the fractured nature of the population makes it hard to say that there was a right to the land -- whose right? And while you admit that the land was taken as a "defensive buffer", you fail to mention that it was taken in response to an attack on Israel by the countries that controlled those areas (there was no 'state of Palestine' that Israel overran). That's war -- if you use something against me, or if you can, I'm gonna do something to neutralize that advantage. Hardly "Trail of Tears" type stuff.

 

Finally, I don't know how you can seriously compare explicit exploitation for economic reasons, under a "manufactured banner" of bringing Christianity to 'heathens' (not MD, but okay), to a claim of landright that dates back millennia. Just, no similarity at all, none.

 

That is a good point. There is no such thing as a recognized 'state of Palestine' from what I have read.

[Balta1701]

I think that Israel's claim to the land is much older than the Palestinian's claim is.

 

That is the key difference that I see in the comparison. In one case, it is a group of people returning to their land that they had thousands of years ago. In the other case, it is a group of people taking over land that they never had a claim to before.

That is a good point. There is no such thing as a recognized 'state of Palestine' from what I have read.

So, based on this argument, you would admit that since the Native American claim on much of U.S. territory is far older than the claims of the current American inhabitants, they should have the right to reclaim as much of that land as they see fit? Their claim is far older than ours is, for example.

[WCSox]

I think that Israel's claim to the land is much older than the Palestinian's claim is.

 

That is the key difference that I see in the comparison. In one case, it is a group of people returning to their land that they had thousands of years ago. In the other case, it is a group of people taking over land that they never had a claim to before.

 

This is an interesting little read about some of the history. I would be interested in seeing other sources that people run across with it:

http://www.science.co.il/Israel-history.asp

That is a good point. There is no such thing as a recognized 'state of Palestine' from what I have read.

 

IIRC, the British controlled that land (and also Jordan) via a mandate from the League of Nations after WWI. While it was sort of a no-man's land that was populated mostly by Arabs, there had been no sovereign Arab government control over it when the U.N. gave part of it to the Jews.

[NorthSideSox72]

Just, no. First of all, Manifest Destiny was the idea that America had a divine mission to expand across our continent; it has nothing to do with European colonization of the Americas.

 

Did I blend the two? If so, it was more symbolic. If you want to get into that level of the argument (which I doubt the Indians gave a damn about), then yes, MD was an American thing. I basically made that point.

 

Now as for the supposed parallel -- while the Native Americans were clearly defined nations/peoples, it's hard to argue that about the Palestinians. There were a significant number of Jews in Palestine, originally, who were very much pro-Israel. And the fractured nature of the population makes it hard to say that there was a right to the land -- whose right?

 

This is certainly a good point. The situation is not at all black and white.

 

And while you admit that the land was taken as a "defensive buffer", you fail to mention that it was taken in response to an attack on Israel by the countries that controlled those areas (there was no 'state of Palestine' that Israel overran). That's war -- if you use something against me, or if you can, I'm gonna do something to neutralize that advantage. Hardly "Trail of Tears" type stuff.

 

Actually, read my post again. I very specifically mentioned the attack on Israel by Egypt and Syria.

 

Finally, I don't know how you can seriously compare explicit exploitation for economic reasons, under a "manufactured banner" of bringing Christianity to 'heathens' (not MD, but okay), to a claim of landright that dates back millennia. Just, no similarity at all, none.

 

I can seriously compare them because they are more alike than not, for the reasons I listed. You have blended the Chirstianity drive (more a Spanish and French thing) with MD (American thing) that you earlier criticized me for blending. Are they related or not?

 

For you to say there is no similarity at all is kind of ridiculous and blind. If you feel they are different in a lot important ways, I can see that. But to say something like "Just, no similarity at all, none" is inaccurate on its face, unless you can tell me how each parallel I drew is non-existent.

[Pale Hose Jon]

IIRC, the British controlled that land (and also Jordan) via a mandate from the League of Nations after WWI. While it was sort of a no-man's land that was populated mostly by Arabs, there had been no sovereign Arab government control over it when the U.N. gave part of it to the Jews.

 

 

A Brief History of the Creation of Israel.

 

So WWI hits and the British need a way to eliminate the Ottoman empire whihc at the time had become very fractured. Britian did not have that many troops so it made the Hussein Mcmahon deal in 1915. This deal promissed to Shairf Hussein that he would be given controll of the arab world if he would lead an overthrow of the ottoman empire. HE did and at the conclusion of the war the British said ehh, too bad.

 

Then we have the Sykes Picot agreement. this is where the british anf french carve up the middle east with the british and french both controlling palestine.

 

In 1917 Lord Balfour declares that there shall be a Jewish Homeland. Many see this as a way for the british to increase loans from banks due to war debt.

 

Next comes the Uganda Kenya Offer. The british offer a large sum of land in Africa to the world Zionist organization. Theodore Herzl grateully accepts, but the World Zionist organization does not, and the conflict in palestine grows.

 

So Woodrow willson knows that the Mandate system will nto wor so he sends the King Crane Commision. The commision interviewed many people in Palestine and what they learned was that the people feared zionism and would accept a US mandate, but for obvious reasons did not trust the Europeans at all.

 

Jewish immigration increases, and in 1936 the Arabs began a revolt. The revolt was a non violent boycott against anything jewish or european it lasted for 3 years until the British issued the White paper. the paper declared that jewish immigration would be limited and that the palestinians would have a state in less than 10 years.

 

 

On comes world war two and UNSCOP. Skipping many things like the Patria disaster and Qassam. The Partition plan was passed by the UN in 1947, then we have Deir Yassin, and independence on may 14th of 1948.

 

 

 

 

 

So What is the Morale of the story. When countries try to decide the fate of other countries, things tend to get f***ed up.

[CanOfCorn]

So What is the Morale of the story. When countries try to decide the fate of other countries, things tend to get f***ed up.

 

And yet, it continues..........

[jackie hayes]

Did I blend the two? If so, it was more symbolic. If you want to get into that level of the argument (which I doubt the Indians gave a damn about), then yes, MD was an American thing. I basically made that point.

 

This is certainly a good point. The situation is not at all black and white.

 

Actually, read my post again. I very specifically mentioned the attack on Israel by Egypt and Syria.

 

I can seriously compare them because they are more alike than not, for the reasons I listed. You have blended the Chirstianity drive (more a Spanish and French thing) with MD (American thing) that you earlier criticized me for blending. Are they related or not?

 

For you to say there is no similarity at all is kind of ridiculous and blind. If you feel they are different in a lot important ways, I can see that. But to say something like "Just, no similarity at all, none" is inaccurate on its face, unless you can tell me how each parallel I drew is non-existent.

MD had nothing to do with Europeans. That's just a fact. And while you mention that Israel is attacked, you did not mention that its attackers controlled the Palestinian areas themselves, which is an important detail.

 

I'm not going to get into a big thing over this. I find your "parallels" superficial, and it would be easy to find random things in common between any two groups alive at any time. Somehow I feel ancient, maintained claim to a nation is fundamentally different than purely economic exploitation. Somehow I believe clearly defined nations are fundamentally different than people who happen to be living in one place, as the Cherokee nation is different than the Chicago suburbs. You disagree. Okay.

 

You asked for discussion and I gave an honest answer. I thought you were totally wrong, I said that bluntly, and I gave reasons. For that I'm blind? Bulls***. You're just arranging things to see what you want to see. Blindness looks pretty good in comparison.

[WCSox]

So What is the Morale of the story. When countries try to decide the fate of other countries, things tend to get f***ed up.

 

And sometimes when countries do not, things get even more f***ed up (WWII).

 

Perhaps my memory fails me, but I believe that Jordan was given to the Arabs by the British. Quite a bit more land than Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza.

[NorthSideSox72]

MD had nothing to do with Europeans. That's just a fact. And while you mention that Israel is attacked, you did not mention that its attackers controlled the Palestinian areas themselves, which is an important detail.

 

I'm not going to get into a big thing over this. I find your "parallels" superficial, and it would be easy to find random things in common between any two groups alive at any time. Somehow I feel ancient, maintained claim to a nation is fundamentally different than purely economic exploitation. Somehow I believe clearly defined nations are fundamentally different than people who happen to be living in one place, as the Cherokee nation is different than the Chicago suburbs. You disagree. Okay.

 

You asked for discussion and I gave an honest answer. I thought you were totally wrong, I said that bluntly, and I gave reasons. For that I'm blind? Bulls***. You're just arranging things to see what you want to see. Blindness looks pretty good in comparison.

OK then.

[WCSox]

A Brief History of the Creation of Israel.

 

So WWI hits and the British need a way to eliminate the Ottoman empire whihc at the time had become very fractured. Britian did not have that many troops so it made the Hussein Mcmahon deal in 1915. This deal promissed to Shairf Hussein that he would be given controll of the arab world if he would lead an overthrow of the ottoman empire. HE did and at the conclusion of the war the British said ehh, too bad.

 

It's a bit more complicated than that...

 

McMahon's second letter dated 24 October 1915 is crucial. It states that:

 

The districts of Mersin and Alexandretta, and portions of Syria lying to the west of the districts of Damascus, Homs, Hama and Aleppo, cannot be said to be purely Arab, and must on that account be excepted from the proposed delimitation. Subject to that modification, and without prejudice to the treaties concluded between us and certain Arab Chiefs, we accept that delimitation. As for the regions lying within the proposed frontiers, in which Great Britain is free to act without detriment to interests of her ally France, I am authorized to give you the following pledges on behalf of the Government of Great Britain, and to reply as follows to your note: That subject to the modifications stated above, Great Britain is prepared to recognize and uphold the independence of the Arabs in all the regions lying within the frontiers proposed by the Sharif of Mecca.

 

McMahon's promises are seen by Arab nationalists as a pledge of immediate Arab independence. They also believe that the undertaking was violated by the region's subsequent partition into British and French League of Nations mandates under the secret Sykes-Picot Agreement of May 1916.

 

The ambiguity that rose from the letter concerned Palestine, which was not explicitly mentioned in the correspondence. The letter refers to The districts of Mersin and Alexandretta, and portions of Syria lying to the west of the districts of Damascus, Homs, Hama and Aleppo..., but does not specifically mention the Sanjak of Jerusalem, which was the Ottoman administrative division that covered most of Palestine.

 

Link

Edited July 17, 2006 by WCSox

[vandy125]

So, based on this argument, you would admit that since the Native American claim on much of U.S. territory is far older than the claims of the current American inhabitants, they should have the right to reclaim as much of that land as they see fit? Their claim is far older than ours is, for example.

 

Balta, that is a good point that you make. If someone came and wiped us out, then gave the Native Americans their mostly uninhabited land back, then I think there is a good correlation. I think that I needed to add that the land was conquered and mostly uninhabited at the time.

 

From what I have read, the 'Palestinians' were recent Arab immigrants to that area. This is something that I have not gone too deep into, but this book seems like a good reading to take a look at. There were not a bunch of 'Palestinians' living there who have been there for generations and are being displayed. There was not much there.

[Rex Kickass]

Palestinians aren't Arab, although they speak Arabic - it is a distinct nationality.

[Balta1701]

Balta, that is a good point that you make. If someone came and wiped us out, then gave the Native Americans their mostly uninhabited land back, then I think there is a good correlation. I think that I needed to add that the land was conquered and mostly uninhabited at the time.

 

From what I have read, the 'Palestinians' were recent Arab immigrants to that area. This is something that I have not gone too deep into, but this book seems like a good reading to take a look at. There were not a bunch of 'Palestinians' living there who have been there for generations and are being displayed. There was not much there.

Of course, I for one might think it worth noting that the reason much of the native American lands were uninhabited in the 17th century was that contacts between Europe and North America in the 1500's brought over diseases that killed over 90% of the population of North America within a century or so.

[NorthSideSox72]

Of course, I for one might think it worth noting that the reason much of the native American lands were uninhabited in the 17th century was that contacts between Europe and North America in the 1500's brought over diseases that killed over 90% of the population of North America within a century or so.

Most of North America was not "uninhabited" in the 17th century - there would still have been millions of natives at that point. And disease was just starting its big run at that point. Some areas, like the northeast, were devastated. But other areas were left mostly untouched by disease in the 1600's.

 

I'd bet the 90% level of kill-off wasn't reached until the 19th century. Heck, even in the mid-19th century, there were still Indians walking the trails in central Illinois (so goes the stories from my family).

[vandy125]

Palestinians aren't Arab, although they speak Arabic - it is a distinct nationality.

 

Has there ever been a Palestinian nation? What are their national holidays, customs, etc? Do they have any distinct cuisines or anything? I am curious as to what makes them a distinct nationality? I hope this does not sound confrontational (I do not mean for it to be), because this is something I am curious about.