h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Apparition- It doesn't matter who initialy wrote the comment, It was dead on! I was viewing a TV Program last night which focused on the orphans of wars all over the world. It made reference to the riots in Palestine between the Jewish and Muslim populations. it then went on to commenting that One displaced group became the cause of another. ie the present Israelis have now displaced the Palestinians. It wasn't clear as to what the riots were about. Do you know? I commented on this thread a long time ago that I amwary of people with non Israeli accents speaking as Israeli officials on the rights of Israeli settlers. In my mind, they are "foreigners" invading a country which they know little about. Perhaps if these new patriots had a family history of being an indigious people of the region, their view on present day problems would be different and peaceful co-existance would be more attainable. No I'm not Jewish Muslim or even Christian but my Jewish relatives agree with me- Thank goodness or dining together would be a major problem! Cheers

I personally dont see why these "settlers" have any rights, especially if you take away the comfortable term "settlers". If one group of forigners decided that another group of forigners could take my country as their new homeland. I for one wouldn't be viewing them as settlers that I want to make peace with.

You could draw a paralell with the israeli invasion and the american "push westward" (invasion of soverign "indian" teretory). Maybe that's where Israel gets its staunch support. Maybe the middle east will have reservations maybe they already do, under another name.

With all that. Can someone please explain the "right to exist"?

Gif's Thought for the Day (as I can only handle one):

People in the UK complain about the 'immigration problem'. The UK doesn't have an immigration problem. Palestine has an immigration problem.

Apparition - I could explain the term 'right to exist'. I'd have a harder time explaining it in such a way that it applies only to Israelis not Palestinians, or indeed only to Palestinians not Israelis.

Gif

Gif did you read the copy paste I put on the previous page of posts?

Yes. The first paragraph of my previous post was supposed to be a condensed version of your cut-and-paste (leaving out all the actual evidence, obviously, as that only gets in the way).

I assume your question means 'How can Israel have a right to exist in the light of the evidence in the cut-and-paste?'. (If that's not what you meant, you might as well skip the rest of this post as I'll be getting needlessly defensive ).

My answer is that Israel is not some abstract ideal (a point on which I probably disagree with many Israelis). Israel, like any other country, is a collection of people associated with a government and some land. Countries don't have 'rights', individual people do. Among those rights is the 'right to self-determination', i.e. to choose their own government. If a country is said to have rights, it is only as a shorthand for 'the combined rights of all its residents'. Israel has a 'right to exist' because the people who live there want it to. I view it as a fait accompli. How it came to be in the first place is (in my opinion) not relevant. To use your own example, the settlers' actions towards the natives in America do not mean that the USA has no right to exist.

Many people have been born and lived their whole lives in Israel, as have their parents before them. If Israel has no right to exist, what nationality are these people? To call them anything but Israelis seems irrational.

Note that I do not defend or condone the actions of Zionist terrorists in the 1940s. Those that are still alive should be tried and convicted if there is evidence, as should Palestinian terrorists. Nor will I defend the actions of settlers who continue to appropriate Palestinian land (though I cannot blame children born in settlements for the existence of those settlements).

As I indicated in my previous post, all this applies to Palestinians also. They have every right to exist in the West Bank, where they still form the vast majority (and yes, I do realise that this does not offer an easy solution to the Middle East conflict, Jerusalem, etc. as I have not offered an answer to what happens when mixed groups want different governments. I am not offering a solution, merely an opinion).

Perhaps all that can be best surmised with a question: what, in practical terms, is the alternative to Israel having a right to exist?

Gif

"To use your own example, the settlers' actions towards the natives in America do not mean that the USA has no right to exist."

This is where my staunch support comment came in. In the 20th century americans were still making movies about evil savage indians killing innocent settlers. I remember watching reruns of them on tv when I was a child and didn't know any better. Were the indians supposed to differentiate between military and settlers (both invaders in their eyes). Like in Israel they both have guns and no qualms about using them.

It may sound harsh but having children born in settlments just serves the PR job of having invaders seen as settlers. Palastine has children too and I see their rights above Israeli one, again it migh sound harsh, but their parents, grandparents etc were already there. Surely one of these countries that created Israel have a less densly populated area that they could give up.

"Perhaps all that can be best surmised with a question: what, in practical terms, is the alternative to Israel having a right to exist?" see last sentence of previous paragraph.

I have seen you talk about how americans took land of the indians and isreal took palastinian land. If I gauge you correctly this insenses you. But I noticed you neglected to mention your home NZ and the aboriginals who predated you and all other europeons. Maybe you should deed over your property and catch the first plane back to briten.

Hi Apparition,

I don't support N. Am.s killing children any more than I support Israelis killing children (or adults, for that matter). Nor do I think that Palestinians killing Israeli civilians will get them any further than it got the Lakota et al. Note that I am not saying I can't understand their frustration/desparation that all legitimate attempts to stop these (clearly illegitimate) clearance acts have failed. Nor am I offering a solution for them, since I don't have one. Perhaps if the international community was a little more active, they wouldn't feel they have to resort to these methods.

I don't agree with you that Palestinian children have more rights than Israeli children simply because they can trace their ancestry back further. I think I stated that clearly in my previous post, so I guess we just have to disagree on that point. I will add that Palestinians aren't indiginous, it's just that they displaced the previous occupants much longer ago than the Israelis.

Re my question: Perhaps my question was unclear. I meant 'what is the practical alternative to saying that Israel has a right to exist *now*'. I fully agree that things could/should have been done differently 50 years ago, but what do you mean by Israel not having a right to exist *now*? I am pretty sure you're not suggesting that the entire nation decamp to somewhere else.

Gif

"I have seen you talk about how americans took land of the indians and isreal took palastinian land. If I gauge you correctly this insenses you. But I noticed you neglected to mention your home NZ and the aboriginals who predated you and all other europeons. Maybe you should deed over your property and catch the first plane back to briten."

NZ has no aboriginals. Australia does and they can be traced back tens of thousands of years. If you're thinking of the Maori, they slaughtered en mass the people who were here before them. Britland and europe have buildings that have been around before there were human footprints on NZ soil. ie there is no comparing

Gif - maybe I was a little extreem in expressing my view and I certainly don't condone killing by anyone (If you knew my stance on/against killing in general you'd think me extreem and idealistic) but you see my point. I still don't see that settlers/invaders have any right to the teretory that they've taken.

"
I don't support N. Am.s killing children any more than I support Israelis killing children (or adults, for that matter)."

That was very much not my point. My point on children was simply. Being born in an illegal settlement does not give you any rights to it.

Hi Apparition,

So:

Israelis have no right to the land because they took it from Palestinians who took it from others (cue embarrasing lack of historical knowledge from all of us as to who they actually were, it seems).

N.Z.ers took land from Maoris who took land from unknown others.

What's the difference? Only that the Israel/Palestine thing is a few generations more recent than the NZ/Maori thing, as far as I can see. So is all we are arguing about how many generations you have to live somewhere before you become a 'native'? If so, you are conceeding that Israel will become a 'legitimate' country just by existing for a certain length of time.

(Actually, that's not such an unreasonable view - as time passes, it becomes less and less reasonable to view Israel as anything else.)

Gif

PS - my understanding was the the Maoris 'displaced', rather than 'slaughtered en masse' any previous inhabitants. Could be wrong though, and I'm sure they didn't do it by persuasion and diplomacy in any event.

Gif I see your points.

Your last statement was very wrong. The Maori did slaughter the moriori and ate them in many instances. NZers did not take "Maori land" the brit empire did. NZ wasn't quite NZ yet and all armed forces were British.

Anyway it's all not the point. Starbirth took offence at my comparason with this issue and the early expansion of america. And suggested NZ and "aborigionals" as a comparason instead.


For future reference: Starbirth dislikes me alot and will dissagree and many times insult when ever he is aware of me posting. I suspect that bringing up NZ was a result of this.

"Actually, that's not such an unreasonable view - as time passes, it becomes less and less reasonable to view Israel as anything else."

And displaced palastine will be just a lament for people over tea/coffee break discussions?

If patter chaser is still watching - I found this

"The point of that comment was that if we chose to fdeligate our decision making to governments then were have to take personal responsiblity for those decisions made in our name. Thats what democracy is about. If our governments do bad things then we must be prepared to pay the consequence, or we must remove our own governments."

Dated from october 2001

Hi Apparition,

I looked up 'moriori' on the web and it looks like we're both wrong: http://www.enzed.com/faq/b2.html notes that the Moriori were not a pre-Maori group (and also notes that it was taught in schools until 'quite recently' that they were). It seems there was little in the way of pre-Maori humans in N.Z.

As to your question of what wil happen to Palestine, I imagine much the same; as time passes (and assuming that Israel does eventually withdraw as promised), the West Bank and Gaza will become fully recognised countries. I expect they will separate (if indeed they last at all) as 'split countries' seems to have a pretty low survival rate.

Where is that quote from?

Gif

If you search for news (around 4 mounths or so) you'll see where Moriori have been given land under the treaty of waitangi as they were proven to have 'been there first'.
I noticed that your source got the date of the land wars wrong by about 20 years. The other main problem is rewriting history to be politically correct or culturally sensitive. You'll see almost nowhere in modern text anything about the maori practice eating an enemy cheif and keeping his head to obtain his "mana"


"Where is that quote from?"

Nowhere profound. One of your countrymen on another thread.

As to the future if Palastine. I don't see Israel stopping it's expansion nor do I see anyone stopping them. The "west" seems to pick and choose where to stop expansion by a nation. Palastine doesn't have the money that kuwait or saudi arabia.

I found this article - "After a six year investigation, the Waitangi Tribunal has found the Moriori people of the Chatham islands, 700 kilometres to the east of New Zealand, have an ancestral right to their lands, which were invaded by Maori tribes in 1835 [long after Europeans arrived]"

Reading around this a bit, it seems the Moriori had no contact with the Maori until the Europeans arrived. They are often confused with the Moriwi (sp?) which was a Maori tribe wiped out in internecine warfare before the Europeans arrived.

The Land Wars (listed in the site I referenced as 1840s and 1860s) ran from 1843-1848 and then again from 1860 onwards. They kind of petered out, so some say they finished in 1872, others in the 1880s or even 1916!

I can find many websites detailing Maori cannibalism and head-hunting (of rival Maori tribes or even occasionally Europeans), but none detailing any pre-Maori human inhabitants of N.Z. (OK, there is one claiming that the Celts settled there first, but other than that I can find none.)

I hope I'm not coming across as argumentative here! I knew very little about N.Z. history before you mentioned it, so I am enjoying finding some out. It's getting just a tad off-topic though, so perhaps we should move to a new thread?

*****

As to what will happen to Israel - I can't see it expanding any further. They seem to have enough trouble with what they have now, e.g. rather unceremonious withdrawl from Lebanon just over a year ago. So I expect Israel to stay within its current borders (though I'm not so confident that I would put money on that!). An independent West Bank is the only solution I can see to this, but even if Israel grant it (rather than sending tanks in every 3 months as they are at the moment), it seems uncertain that the Palestinians will cease hostilities.

Gif

>Your last statement was very wrong. The Maori did slaughter the moriori and ate them in many instances. NZers did not take "Maori land" the brit empire did. NZ wasn't quite NZ yet and all armed forces were British.<

Is this not what has occured through out human history ? One people conquer another take their land and assimilate them into their empire? Using your analogy then the original landowners were Moriori who were absorbed {literally} by the Maori who were assimilated by the British empire who then formed the nation of New zealand ?

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

>Anyway it's all not the point. Starbirth took offence at my comparason with this issue and the early expansion of america. And suggested NZ and "aborigionals" as a comparason instead.<

Of course it is the point you made a statement and i made a rebutal. If I confused maori with Aborigionals I do apologiese but it does not change the comparision.

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

>For future reference: Starbirth dislikes me alot and will dissagree and many times insult when ever he is aware of me posting. I suspect that bringing up NZ was a result of this.<

Do not dislike you alot or a little I simply disagree with you world views.

The reason I took exception was the aborigionals, like the native americans have been around 10's of thousands of years and they are australian - compared to that the maori are a drop in the bucket.

"Do not dislike you alot or a little I simply disagree with you world views. "

I do not want to get into the things you've said to me recently. This is not the place.

" (OK, there is one claiming that the Celts settled there first, but other than that I can find none.)" a number of years ago a piece of wood was found that was dated to viking times and was from a ship. Other than that I don't know much about it. BTW when I said modern texts I meand history books, specificly those used in schools.

" An independent West Bank is the only solution I can see to this, but even if Israel grant it"

There you've hit upon the problem as I see it. It seems offencive (who exactly are those who would take most offence is a discussionin in itself) to suggest that it is something for Israel to grant. Like the decision taken in their parliment over wether to "allow" a palastine state.