Abunimah: The Native American analogy doesn’t work

Earlier today Weiss did a post mentioning Native Americans and the argument that American historical sins immunize the Israelis from the Palestinian right of return.
 
Citing the ethnic cleansing of Native Americans as a way to justify not recognizing the Palestinian right of return, as I’ve often heard people do, is usually disingenuous. The situation is comparable up to a point and then breaks down. Native Americans were ethnically cleansed as Palestinians were and are being ethnically cleansed. As a percentage of the US population today, Native Americans constitute less than one percent. We should support doing everything possible to recognize and support their rights, including returning traditional land as has happened to greater or lesser degrees in other settler-colonial countries including Canada, Australia and New Zealand. 
 
The main reason people can flippantly say “well if you support the Palestinian right of return then you should support Native Americans returning to their land” in order to justify Israel not recognizing the Palestinian right is that there are simply so few Native Americans that the question does not really arise. Native Americans in the United States are struggling for survival, justice and recognition, but generally not by seeking the return of land that is now, say, a neighborhood of Chicago. Their struggle came poignantly to light recently in the affair of the US refusal to recognize tribal passports of the Iroquois Lacrosse team that was supposed to travel to the UK (link here).
 
But imagine if the situation were more analogous to Palestine today in terms of numbers. Imagine if Native Americans constituted 30, 40, or 50 or even 20 percent of the population of the United States and that they lived in sealed reservations in conditions similar to those in the Gaza Strip or refugee camps in the West Bank or Lebanon?

If there were 30, 70 or 100 million people who identified as Native Americans and existed in such conditions, no one would be able to so flippantly dismiss either their right to return to their original lands or any challenge they would make to the legitimacy of the United States. The United States would have a legitimacy crisis and bloodbath on its hands.
 
The only reason the United States can so easily ignore the rights of Native Americans is that they suffered near-genocide. Palestinians today are 50 percent of the population in their historic homeland and cannot simply be ignored as they could be if they were one percent. This is why Benny Morris said in 2004 that yes, ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians was necessary and justified to create Israel, but if Ben-Gurion had made a mistake it was that he did not “finish the job.” The United States, Canada, Australia did “finish the job” and those are the settler-colonial states that survive. French Algeria, Portuguese Mozambique, Rhodesia, Apartheid South Africa, Protestant-ruled Northern Ireland and Israel are the settler-colonial states where the native population remained either a majority or a substantial minority that could challenge the legitimacy of the state. How many of them are left?
 
Finally, it is disingenuous to make this an issue solely about property rights. Property rights are a difficult issue that would affect a fraction of Palestinians and Israelis. Most Palestinians, however, could return to land in Israel that is currently empty. Israelis reject the right of return primarily on ethnoreligious grounds: they just don’t want too many Palestinians polluting the “Jewish democracy.”
 

About Ali Abunimah

Philip Weiss is Founder and Co-Editor of Mondoweiss.net.
Posted in Israel/Palestine | Tagged , , ,

{ 184 comments... read them below or add one }

  1. Good points.

    Israelis reject the right of return primarily on ethnoreligious grounds: they just don’t want too many Palestinians polluting the “Jewish democracy.”

    Must-see video by Ilan Pappe on this (especially near the end of video 1) up at Pulse today :
    link to pulsemedia.org

    It really helped me understand a lot, anyway, very clear thinking.
    He basically comes to the conclusion that Zionism as an ideology must be totally abandoned, especially in its more “progressive” or “friendly” forms, in order for there to be any real progress ; and describes his own transformation to an anti- or non-Zionist position, and how it was like the release of a burden for him.
    Highly recommended for those of us who still need some clarification on the issue.

    • Kathleen says:

      Thanks so much. This panel discussion should be linked far and wide. Ilan Pappe is so amazing. So fair, compassionate and fact based

      Abbas: I’ll Ask Israel To Take Over West Bank
      link to huffingtonpost.com

    • Sumud says:

      lareineblanche ~ I watched that vid w/ Pappe talking about his feelings of being uplifted post-zionism, VERY interesting, also his opinion that zionism itself must be discarded. His description of feeling liberated from zionism immediately made me think Phil should watch it, because Pappe has managed to find a way out of the bubble and get on with life.

      *I think PULSE might have edited the page because the vid with Pappe talking liberation is now 2nd. The correct title is “Die zionistiche ideologie des Staates Israe…”

      Also available here as the 2nd vid – with some addition German language speakers from the Stuttgard PSC:

      link to pulsemedia.org

  2. eee says:

    Very weak. Basically the argument is: “You should have killed the Palestinians when you had a chance instead of just not letting them return and then you would have been fine.” Obviously any argument that makes a person worse off for acting in a more moral manner is dubious.

    Furthermore, the argument spells the best way for Israel to solve the issue of the right of return. All it has to do is wait for all the Palestinians that were alive in 1948 to die, and then no one with a right of return will be left. The youngest is 62. In 40 or so years the right of return will be a non-issue.

    Let me add that the Native American issue is not the only relevant one. How about the Jewish property in Poland. About 3-4 million Polish Jews were killed in the Holocaust. They did not live on the streets. For example, my extended family owned textile mills and much real estate. None of their property has been returned. On this issue let me be clear. Over my dead body will Palestinians return to Israel unless every last piece of Polish Jewish property returns to its rightful owners and heirs. Same goes for any Jewish property confiscated in Arab countries. I am also amenable to the Poles and Arabs compensating the Palestinians directly, leaving us out.

    • Potsherd2 says:

      “No Jewish property will be returned to its owners until the last Palestinians are fully restored to their former homes.”

      • Kathleen says:

        Do we ever hear talks about how much Palestinians would be payed for the stealing of their lands?

        • Do we ever hear talks about who would front the money to pay Palestinians for the stealing of their lands?

          USA paid for Jewish settlers to move from Gaza.
          USA paid for Jews to migrate from Russia to Israel.

    • So basically, whether the Palestinians have a right to return is dependent on what the Poles do? Seriously?

      • eee says:

        “No Jewish property will be returned to its owners until the last Palestinians are fully restored to their former homes.”

        Fine with me. And of course vice versa.

        “So basically, whether the Palestinians have a right to return is dependent on what the Poles do? Seriously?”

        Yes, you have it right. And also on what the Arabs do. If you want a solution based on “justice” these are clearly the parameters. Anything else will not be “justice”.

        • Koshiro says:

          Right. So if an employer swindled me out of my wages, say by issuing a bad cheque, I’m free to rob you, and then let my employer and you sort things out. And that would then be “justice”.
          ‘Hateful’ was actually the wrong word to use. ‘Insane’ would be more appropriate.

        • >> Over my dead body will Palestinians return to Israel unless every last piece of Polish Jewish property returns to its rightful owners and heirs.

          and: Yes, you have it right. And also on what the Arabs do. If you want a solution based on “justice” these are clearly the parameters. Anything else will not be “justice”.

          The corollary to your argument, eee, is as per: If someone steals something from me, I am entitled to steal something from someone else.

          How can you possibly defend this? Or are you just so stupid that you do not realize the logical implications of the moral positions you hold?

        • pjdude says:

          No what you want is not justice but petty vindiciveness at best. If you’d bother to note poles lost a crap ton of property under the nazu, soviets, and the soviet puppit government and haven’t gotten any compensation but I some how get the feeling you argue against them getting it.

        • No system of justice in the world is based on the proposition that party x is not obligated to return stolen property to party y until completely unrelated party z returns property to x. (In fact, in this case its even worse, as the Jews to whom Poland should return property are not even necessarily Israeli Jews.) It’s just a silly idea.

        • Sumud says:

          What you’re talking about has nothing to do with justice. What you’re talking about is collective punishment of Palestinians for crimes entirely unrelated to them.

        • Kathleen says:

          eee is hoping distractions will work

        • to complete this celebration of consistency, should we say, “Over my dead body will Palestinians return to Israel unless every last piece of Polish Jewish property returns to its rightful owners and heirs” and every last bit of American property that was taken from indigenous Americans is returned to them, and every last bit of land that Hebrews stole from Canaanites is returned to them.

        • back to consistency:
          here’s the timeline:

          Ancient Hebrews cleansed the land of Canaan of Canaanites; Canaanites were the aboriginals on the land.

          The combined populations of the Hebrews and remaining indigenous peoples plus numerous waves of in- and out-migrations of peoples to the region geographically known as the Levant, which later came to be called Palestine, were a mix of Arabs, Canaanites, Jews.
          Starting over 100 years ago and intensifying over the past 45+- years, Jews have been attempting to ethnically cleanse all but Jews from the region.
          _ _ _ _ _

          Native Americans/”Indians”/indigenous people” were the aboriginals of the North American continent/USofA. European settlers on North America but even more importantly, Spanish settlers in South America, undertook the most thorough genocide of indigenous peoples that history has ever known (according to Prof. Marshall Eakins of U Cal LA).

          South Americans and many North Americans were “Spanishized” and inhabitants of the southern part of North America were largely Spanish plus indigenous peoples. Later, African Negroes were transported to the region to cultivate it, as white Europeans settled pressed further and further south (with the further understanding that Spanish settlement of St. Augustine in present-day Florida preceded English colonization in the northeast).

          Those Hispanic/indigenous peoples in Central and southern N. America are the equivalent of “Palestinians” in Israel.

          Hispanics are migrating from Central America deeper and deeper into the geographic as well as social, economic, and political heart of North America/European America, causing a great deal of distress in European “colonist/settlers” in the US.

          The debate over the acceptability of Hispanics (a term I will use for convenience, to refer to indigenous peoples and Spanishized peoples) within European America is on the front burner of American federal legislation in the form of the “Dream Act,” a piece of legislation that would grant full citizenship rights and opportunities to (primarily) Hispanic “illegals” in the US. Hispanics have claimed a de facto “right of return” to their native land; Americans are being called upon to incorporate these natives into the American fabric de jure.

          Advocating for the rights of Hispanics and other immigrants to the US for a just “right of return” to the USofA is Frank Sharry of America’s Voice, the organization he founded in 2008 after toiling in the field of immigrants’ rights for 17 years.

          This morning, Daniel Stein was a guest on C Span Washington Journal, urging listeners to oppose the Dream Act. Stein has been president of FAIR, the Federation for American Immigration Reform, since 1982. Among several arguments Stein offered as to why Hispanics should be sent back to the places they came from ( Jordan, Egypt Central America, Mexico, Germany, Poland) were that “those people” brought only low-level skills to the US, that their educational achievement was below American standards, that they were a drain on American economies.

          The quick-and-dirty scorecard: Frank Sharry thinks the Dream Act should become law to incorporate ALL American residents into full American rights, opportunities, citizenship — the “one state” solution.

          Daniel Stein thinks Hispanics should have no rights to remain/return to the US because they’re just not smart enough or rich enough.

      • Citizen says:

        WB, eee is a Zionist. His premise therefore is that all Gentiles are fungible, even if one lives in Antartica and the other in Costa Rica; this principle is applied by Zionists to any bad deed done by either/any Gentile. OTH, the principle does NOT apply to any good deed done by either. Hence Righteous Gentiles are treated as aberrations, the exception that proves the rule of innate Gentile anti-semitism, which is, of course one of the hard sciences–a pathology recognized in the DSM, as it’s name implies (Cf: “Jew-hater.”).
        Conversely, to the likes of eee, nobody can use the term “Jews” because every Jew is a unique human being, a full individual in the sense established by Western Civilization apropos the Enlightenment, which was a major cultural influence, for example, on the USA’s Founding Fathers. Hence Humanism is a top priority principle for Jews as well as Gentiles with European and American backgrounds–but for those with eee’s mindset, the consistent tenents of Humanism are only applicable to the Jewish people, wherever they are born or grow up, no matter when. Further, and consistently, for those with eee’s mindset, if a Jew does a horrible deed in Antartica, you cannot impute in any way that horrible deed onto a Jew in Costa Rica. See? Under Zionism, you can make a Palestinian pay for a crime a Pole did–the reason is because they are both Gentiles. Conversely, you cannot make eee pay for a crime another Jew did, no matter how horrible the crime–the reason is because each Jew is an individual.

        To be even clearer, a self-defined Jew such as Phil or Adam or Mooser cannot speak for all Jews (even if they wanted to, which they don’t (as they have made very clear on this blog), but OTH, an AIPAC spokeman can, or an ADL spokesman, or an Israeli
        working in behalf the Brand Israel function, as well as, for further example, any American Jewish congress person or Supreme Court justice candidate.

        • tree says:

          Great explication of eee’s mindset, Citizen. It seems to apply to hophmi also. He can mind read the thoughts of the people of Dearborn, MI, even though he knows not a one of them, but Phil’s gentile wife can’t possibly question the veracity of a story about a cricket club to which she belonged.

          “…all gentiles are fungible.” Succinct and spot-on. I’ve recently realized that this is the Jewish equivalent of Christians who blame all Jews for the death of Christ.

        • occupyresist says:

          Citizen,

          I wrote a long comment then realized that you had written what I wanted to.

          To summarize, he views it as follows:

          The Victim’s debt must be payed, even if the payer is not the debtor, all payers are the debtor.

        • Mooser says:

          “all Gentiles are fungible”

          Well put.

        • hophmi says:

          “It seems to apply to hophmi also. He can mind read the thoughts of the people of Dearborn, MI, even though he knows not a one of them, but Phil’s gentile wife can’t possibly question the veracity of a story about a cricket club to which she belonged.”

          Typical. You can’t see through an old woman’s obvious antisemitism, and you pass judgment on what I think?

        • MRW says:

          Great comment, citizen.

          This was precisely how the Israeli cab-driver-for-the-day explained Gentiles to my sister in Haifa recently. He also told her she was an Arab, and explained why. Same diff: there’s us then the rest of you, and you are a batch. (She knows zip about the I/P issue, so this was all news to her.)

        • Shmuel says:

          That’s ok, MRW, I had a Jerusalem cabbie insist I was an Arab too, this summer. When he begrudgingly conceded that I just might be a Jew, he absolutely refused to believe I was Ashkenazi. His money was on Iraq. I didn’t ask him where his people were from, but it sure as hell wasn’t Minsk, if you know what I mean.

        • tree says:

          Typical. You can’t see through an old woman’s obvious antisemitism, and you pass judgment on what I think?

          Your comment is typical and pathetic and truly bigoted, hophmi. You call Phil’s wife OBVIOUSLY anti-semitic because she doesn’t believe a specific tale told to her personally about a club she grew up with, AND you think you can mind read people in Dearborn, Michigan when they listened to a speech by Helen Thomas. All gentiles are fungible in your mind, and you know exactly what they think without asking. If someone made your kind of comments about Jews you’d get how bigoted it would sound. You’ve got a big blind spot.

        • Antidote says:

          “You can’t see through an old woman’s obvious antisemitism, and you pass judgment on what I think?”

          You have attacked Thomas on numerous occasions for her ‘obvious antisemitism’, a view I don’t share, and am certainly no exception here or elsewhere. Why the obsession with her age? Does that automatically discredit people’s views by suggesting senility? A foul and cheap move, I’d say. And a bit surprising coming from a Zionist (by your own admission), you know the people who read the Hebrew Bible like history and real estate documents. I recall your female ancestors described in those texts starting to hear the biological clock ticking at about Thomas’s age, producing their first child, and the patriarchs were practically spring chickens at 90, just getting into the important stuff. So what’s your point, dismissing her as an ‘old woman’?

          Somebody call Foxman. I’d think ageism should fall under their mandate. Let’s see:

          “ADL’s mandate is to provide optimized foam treatments and maximize customer value. One of the key elements of a successful cleanout are the …”
          link to adloilfield.com

          oops, wrong website. Here we go:

          “The Anti-Defamation League was founded in 1913 “to stop the defamation of the Jewish people and to secure justice and fair treatment to all.” Now the nation’s premier civil rights/human relations agency, ADL fights anti-Semitism and all forms of bigotry, defends democratic ideals and protects civil rights for all. ”

          link to adl.org

          Foxman, calling out for HT being stripped of all awards and honors for speaking out for the rights of Arabs and Arab Americans, makes a mockery of the ADL’s mandate. Academic institutions are following suit so they won’t lose their funding or be smeared as spreading anti-semitism, which is also what you and Foxman are doing. Thomas has already given the finger to WSU for ‘making a mockery of the First Amendment’, and rightfully so. I love ‘old women’. Watch this video on criticizing Zionism and Israel in academia:

          link to vodpod.com

          And here is another ‘old woman’ for you, a Jerusalem grandmother giving her straightforward opinion on Zionism and Jews ( 3 minutes into the video, also starring Abe Foxman). Do you see some ‘obvious antisemitism’ here? And if so, do you think that’s because she’s even older than Thomas?

        • tree says:

          Antidote,

          “You can’t see through an old woman’s obvious antisemitism, and you pass judgment on what I think?”

          I was referring to hophmi’s comment about PHIL’S WIFE, not about Helen Thomas, posted here: link to mondoweiss.net

          comment 63.

          I assumed, since he quoted it.,that hophmi was responding to my comment and was referring to Phil’s wife as “antisemitic” (as well as “callous and ignorant” from his first comment).

          Perhaps he meant Helen Thomas in his latest comment, but if so then he was not addressing my remarks. But my comment still stands. He thinks he can mindread most gentiles and determine what they think. Its bigoted thinking on his part and he’s too busy condemning others to look in the mirror.

    • Colin Murray says:

      Over my dead body will Palestinians return to Israel unless every last piece of Polish Jewish property returns to its rightful owners and heirs.

      … pregnant with pathology.

    • eljay says:

      >> On this issue let me be clear. Over my dead body will Palestinians return to Israel unless every last piece of Polish Jewish property returns to its rightful owners and heirs.

      So, as long as injustice and immorality occur somewhere in this world, you will actively support and fight for injustice and immorality in Israel. Thank you for clarifying just how hateful a person you really are.

    • Shingo says:

      “Over my dead body will Palestinians return to Israel unless every last piece of Polish Jewish property returns to its rightful owners and heirs.”

      You fascists really love moving the goalposts don’t you? The Palestinians had nothing to do with what happened in Poland, but you want to punish them for it regardless.

      Some Jews in Arab states were driven from their homes in response to Israel’s ethnic cleansing of 750,000 Palestinians, and you want to punish the Palestinians for that too.

      Is it any wonder Zionism is regarded as racism?

      • Kathleen says:

        Racist at the core

      • Sumud says:

        <blockquote<Some Jews in Arab states were driven from their homes in response to Israel’s ethnic cleansing of 750,000 Palestinians, and you want to punish the Palestinians for that too.

        And then Shingo, there is eee’s desire to punish Palestinians for jews making aliyah to Israel in the 1950s.

        What was lauded at the time as a great (and largely voluntary) in-gathering of jews from Middle Eastern countries has in the last decade been rewritten as the expulsion of all jews by the arab states. So not only are Palestinians expected to pay for bad things that others did to jews, they’re supposed to pay for good things like jewish immigration to Israel. And whatever you do, don’t talk about the anti-semitic ethnic cleansing Mossad undertook in Iraq by planting bombs in synagogues in the early 1950s. In time I hope this other Nakba perpetrated by zionists against jews becomes widely understood, alon g with zionist co-operation with the nazis as detailed in Edwin Black’s “The Transfer Agreement”.

    • pjdude says:

      if you want to be compensated for your losses go talk to germany and russia because if you lost property it was because of them not the government of poland. Why should the poles be the ones to pay for the crimes of other’s even if it happened in poland?

      • Citizen says:

        I do know that the Germans having been paying reparations to Israel for years, for generations now. If there is any justice, the Israelis are next to be paying reparations–compensation–that’s why there’s no real base for a peace, but merely a charade process. The US and Australia should cut Israel loose, give it the full dose of self-governing it asks for–that should make the Richard Wittys of the world happy, yes? Those four tiny island nations that keep preventing concrete attention on this at the UN would simply go along with Uncle Sam and Uncle Aussie since they are bought lock stock and barrel and are independent in name only. The usual suspects would be no more. Israel would stand alone with all other nations voting for same and the especially few boldly duplicitous ones refraining from voting.

        • Antidote says:

          The Israelis have made it perfectly clear on several occasions that they expect the international community to foot much if not most of the bill for compensating Palestinians and Jewish settlers (WB) in the event of a peace treaty. May be one reason why the international community appears less than eager or determined to settle the I/P conflict, especially in the current economic situation re US/EU. They, too, have ample reason to stall. Neither US nor German and other European politicians will find this an easy sell to their taxpayers.

        • Citizen says:

          Shawn Hannity and Glen Beck will smoothly transfer the appropriate words to make the medicine go down nicely–as soon as Rupert Murdoch’s wordsmiths give them their teleprompter lines.

        • Antidote says:

          More likely, citizen, it will be hushed up. Don’t expect it to be front-page news discussed by pundits or demagogues on the MSM. We will hear about compensation, but not who pays for it. We would need ZioLeaks to find out.

    • pjdude says:

      your missing something in your blind hatred. the UN and most of the world has agreed to basicly extend the right of return to decendents basicly because of that attitude. to prevent people of running the clock out on justice.

    • Sumud says:

      Very weak. Basically the argument is: …

      Furthermore, the argument spells…

      Abunimah argues none of this.

      Over my dead body will Palestinians return to Israel unless every last piece of Polish Jewish property returns to its rightful owners and heirs. Same goes for any Jewish property confiscated in Arab countries.

      This kind of thinking is identical that enabled the persecution of your relatives in Poland eee. You are seeking tp punish innocent people for other people’s crimes. Do you think your family members who suffered in WW2 would be proud to know that you had adopted the attitude and thinking of their oppressors?

    • Donald says:

      “Basically the argument is: “You should have killed the Palestinians when you had a chance instead of just not letting them return and then you would have been fine.” Obviously any argument that makes a person worse off for acting in a more moral manner is dubious.”

      Your response was expressed from an amoral viewpoint. Ali Abunimah’s “argument” is a simple historical observation–settler states that committed genocide in the 19th century don’t face any problem with the right of return and for the reasons Ali Abunimah gives. I’ve made that point myself, because it’s so obvious. Sometimes a criminal will profit more by committing a bigger crime than by committing a smaller one. Only an immoral person would think this is an argument for criminals to be as ruthless as possible.

    • talknic says:

      eee

      The Palestinians were not the Nazi’s… As you said, the youngest NOW is 62. In 1948, they were ALL CHILDREN.

      NONE dispossessed Polish Jews. NONE fought for Hitler

      NONE (in fact no Palestinian ever) voted the Grand Mufti Who BTW, wasn’t the Grand Mufti of anywhere when he met Hitler. NONE (in fact no Palestinians) served in his battalions in the Balkans.

      So your rant only shows us
      A) How bad you are at maths
      B) how ignorant you are of facts
      C) just how nasty some folk can be.
      D) How feeding on a diet of Hasbara sends folk quite nuts!

  3. Jim Holstun says:

    A great short piece, which makes a brilliant distinction between successful and unsuccessful settler colonial states, and Israel doesn’t lack for ingenuous monsters willing to drive the point home. The execrable Benny Morris, in the piece Ali Abunimah quotes, also draws the analogy, saying, “Even the great American democracy could not have been created without the annihilation of the Indians. There are cases in which the overall, final good justifies harsh and cruel acts that are committed in the course of history.” That’s right, democracy positively REQUIRES ethnic cleansing.

    • Citizen says:

      The native Americans died off in significant part due to exposure to diseases they had never encountered before the white man came to the virgin N American continent. This is not the case with the native Palestinians. Great disappointment to the Jewish settlers. So they’ve had to take the matter into their own hands, even so by doing so they’ve been violating the hard-earned (by millions of deaths, both Gentiles and Jews)
      new world ethics/morality for sovereign states first established at Nuremberg (after the fact) and extended by international law at Geneva etc. In the world’s eyes (except in the surviving colonial state regimes’ eyes), the very justification for Israel is being undermined by Israel and the enabling regimes of the other surviving colonial states. However the Israeli settler problem is eventually solved de facto or de jure will be the litmus test for whether or not Goering’s new barbarian world will take over once again. And the resolution of Iran is tied to that test by Israel itself.

      • VR says:

        The native American Citizens did die, quite a number from disease Citizen, but it was administered to them (the disease) from the colonial settlers. There are a number of documents which corroborate these facts. Some argue that it was “accidental,” and what they try to do is prove that the colonial settlers did not have a knowledge of the transmission of the disease – small pox as an example. However this is not true, because even during the times of the plague when attacking enemies they jettisoned bodies and body parts of the diseased over walls, contaminated water supplies with the disease in besieged cities, etc. So the argument of innocence is bankrupt. Lets get on to the next point fabricated by the colonizers, which some have swallowed whole.

        • Citizen says:

          VR, approximately up to 90% of N American natives died from disease. Those that died from intentional spreading of disease such as smallbox (there were a host of other diseases new to the natives) via actions by murderous whites comprise just a few “administering” incidents during the timeline involved. Your point about the plague in Medieval Europe makes no point at all as that is not relevant since that was a different time and place, way far apart. You write without support sources, and so will I here–I put an informative link source for the pros anda cons of whether or not genocide is an appropriate term for what happened to the N American natives under another article a day or so ago. Go read it.

        • VR says:

          No, why don’t you read a little further down Citizen, because it has a link. To argue that disease could not be used in this manner is ridiculous, because close to that time and all the way back to BC disease was used as a weapon. If you are going to argue do so from facts, not from a penchant to defend murderous colonial activity. To say that the evidence is too far apart is to intimate that forms of warfare are not passed down, used and accumulated is not an argument – if you want to know what is studied why not crack a book from a war college and see that nothing is passed over from the accumulation of knowledge. However, just in case you do not want to search for the other link, here it is –

          THE HISTORY OF BIOLOGICAL WARFARE

          While I am at it here is what I posted along with it –

          Perhaps in the sense of small pox – but not the use of disease, the statement is quite deceptive. Actually the use of disease goes back to BC, and the British used disease in Ireland a couple of hundred years before movement toward the Americas. Tamerlane shot diseased bodies of animals on catapults into enemy territories, on other continents diseased people were driven into enemy camps, etc. One need not know the particulars of a disease in order to use it, so the argument about the electronic microscope etc. is moot.

          Let me say that the theory of a “virgin field epidemic” is quite a bit of magnanimous assumption (like all colonial explanations), especially within the setting of murderous colonialism – convenient epidemics seemed to break out wherever the colonists were about to expand to… There was a three step process which was common in the 17th century, first to act like you were the friends of the indigenous, second were the various clashes, and than finally the war campaigns. In 1633 Indians accused Oldham of spreading disease through contaminated gifts. So it probably just arose as evidential knowledge during the French and Indian wars – but I am glad that you submitted the fact.

          Now, I understand that many have not studied the extremes of what was done during the colonial era, perhaps I can give you a glimpse:

          “He as excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers THE MERCILESS INDIAN SAVAGES, WHOSE KNOWN RULE OF WARFARE, IS AN UNDISTINGUISHED DESTRUCTION OF ALL AGES, SEXES AND CONDITIONS (emphasis mine).” This is the bloody legacy of Manifest Destiny.

          So reads our Declaration Of Independence in regards to the Indian population of the time. Apparently all men are created equal except the Indians. Lest you think this is an isolated statement, it comes from the revolutionary infancy of this nation and can be found in numerous official documents. We committed genocide on our indigenous people, and continue to do so today. Our landscape is littered with broken treaties that we say we prize so highly in our documents with recognized sovereign nations, but it is much worse than endless lies and deceptions in treaties. The land which could not be ceded by gross coercion in treaty was taken by force, and the Indian population genocide.

          They have been rounded up and slaughtered at will to the absolute glee of our perverted people. Yet people have said to me? “Oh well! That is the booty of war, history, water under the bridge.” This is the confession of seared consciences, verbal trash coming from those supposedly educated in our public school system.

          Extermination of the Indians was the accepted policy of our forefathers. The British colonies came and named Jamestown in 1607, and by 1610 this policy of genocide was disgracefully under way. They killed thousands of Indians in numerous confrontations, there were mass poisonings, and Indian property was taken and destroyed. Their villages were burned, they used treaty placation as a ruse to get what they wanted, and than the mass murder was resumed. Through destruction of their fields which grew corn they starved them, and they mercilessly killed innocents and non-combatants – the very things they accuse the Indians of in the Declaration.

          Scalping was brought in by the colonies; they practiced what was known as “scalping bounties” to identify Indian extermination – scalps red with blood, hence the term “red skins.” Full pay for a male scalp, half pay for a woman, and a quarter pay for a child or infant – this was the practice of ALL of the colonies. It was not till this was practiced on the Indians that they began to practice this on the occupiers, in hopes that it would stop the practice, but it did not and the scalping continued.

          We find this calling a people less than human in practice, animals were treated better than the Indians. Our great first President George Washington said that the Indians needed to be totally destroyed. That stalwart man, Andrew Jackson, you know his as “old hickory,” campaigned on the fact that he killed more Indians than anyone else. He kept scalps on display at home for people to look at after they ate dinner. Jackson supervised one time the mutilation of 800 Indian corpses by cutting off their noses to count the massacred – men, women and children his soldiers slaughtered. They would slice of large chunks of flesh off the Indians to make reins for horses. He (Jackson) even ordered and said he would pay a good price for a bridle made from Indian skin. These things took place all over our nation.

          This is the legacy of manifest destiny, when you demonize populations because you are so much better, a city on a hill – which actually is the pit of hell. I have not even begun to recount the atrocities.

        • VR says:

          Well, maybe that is not enough, perhaps I should go on. We also practiced forced removal of their children to re-educate them, from approximately 1880 to 1980. Their children were sent to boarding schools isolating them from their parents, with the co-operation and blessing of some churches. Those who did not agree to the terms were torn from their parents arms.

          In these re-education camps children were forbidden to speak in their language, to speak of their culture, and were told that their parents worshiped demons. Originally the program was run by an appointed penologist (prison official) by the name of Pratt. He was, of course, the man used in the prison system who tortured and broke the leaders of the Indians with great success – they were mentally turned to protoplasm by his methodologies. Yes, this is the type of man they put in charge over the children re-education program. They were also forcefully catechized and were taught the bare essentials of reading, writing, and math – just enough to get them low menial jobs.

          The children who resisted, refused to co-operate, were tortured – some were chained to walls and posts for 30 days or more – they were forced in some instance to eat their own vomit – needles were used to pierce their tongues (as punishment for speaking out), and the horror list goes on. Many died in the wilderness trying to escape.

          When they initially arrived at the schools they were stripped of their clothing, their hair was cut, and they were sprayed with DDT, and forcefully washed with lye assuming they were naturally filthy because of the dark color of their skin. When they were done with their half day of forced re-education they were put to hard labor till late at night, to pay for the salaries of the teachers and the facilities used to re-educate them. This was done to five generations, over 50% of the existing race.

          Than we wonder why they have problems? They were made dysfunctional through abuse. Extremely high mortality rates at birth abound, and the teenage rate of suicide is astronomically higher than the national rate. They drink to drown the pain, to lose the horrific memories and drown the prospect of no future, and many try to expunge their misery by the use of drugs. OUR DENIAL OF THESE FACTS, AND NOT RECTIFYING THESE ISSUES ENSURES THEIR STATE WILL NEVER END.

          It is at this point that historians, trained in professional excuses of how we have acted in the past, will accuse me of the error of presentism (interpreting the present with past realities) – I respond, you are useless and doomed to repeat the past.

          Ask me again for a reference

        • bob says:

          Some argue that it was “accidental,” and what they try to do is prove that the colonial settlers did not have a knowledge of the transmission of the disease – small pox as an example. However this is not true,

          Within just a few generations, the continents of the Americas were virtually emptied of their native inhabitants – some academics estimate that approximately 20 million people may have died in the years following the European invasion – up to 95% of the population of the Americas.

          No medieval force, no matter how bloodthirsty, could have achieved such enormous levels of genocide. Instead, Europeans were aided by a deadly secret weapon they weren’t even aware they were carrying: Smallpox.

          The first recorded instance of using smallpox as a biological weapon occurred on the North American continent during the French and Indian War.

          Smallpox probably was first used as a biological weapon during the French and Indian Wars (1754-1767) by British forces in North America.

          ————-
          The Indians in Peru, Dobyns concluded, had faced plagues from the day the conquistadors showed up—in fact, before then: smallpox arrived around 1525, seven years ahead of the Spanish. Brought to Mexico apparently by a single sick Spaniard, it swept south and eliminated more than half the population of the Incan empire. Smallpox claimed the Incan dictator Huayna Capac and much of his family, setting off a calamitous war of succession. So complete was the chaos that Francisco Pizarro was able to seize an empire the size of Spain and Italy combined with a force of 168 men.

          Smallpox was only the first epidemic. Typhus (probably) in 1546, influenza and smallpox together in 1558, smallpox again in 1589, diphtheria in 1614, measles in 1618—all ravaged the remains of Incan culture. Dobyns was the first social scientist to piece together this awful picture, and he naturally rushed his findings into print. Hardly anyone paid attention. But Dobyns was already working on a second, related question: If all those people died, how many had been living there to begin with? Before Columbus, Dobyns calculated, the Western Hemisphere held ninety to 112 million people. Another way of saying this is that in 1491 more people lived in the Americas than in Europe.

          His argument was simple but horrific. It is well known that Native Americans had no experience with many European diseases and were therefore immunologically unprepared—”virgin soil,” in the metaphor of epidemiologists. What Dobyns realized was that such diseases could have swept from the coastlines initially visited by Europeans to inland areas controlled by Indians who had never seen a white person. The first whites to explore many parts of the Americas may therefore have encountered places that were already depopulated. Indeed, Dobyns argued, they must have done so.

        • Citizen says:

          Some native American tribes were into scalping before the whites came. Most natives died of diseases new to them, many before there were a substantial amount of whites in N America. The blacks were not recognized by our Forefathers as fully human either. I don’t dispute the impact of the Manifest Destiny mindset on the natives, but your red & white version of American history is misleading. Let’s not trade in our old infantile black & white version once taught in our schools for a new one. What whites allowed and ignored when it came to the natives is severe enough–it doesn’t have to be exaggerated. Romantics should not be writing history, no matter which stripe they are.

        • VR says:

          I think I will fell two with one post, both Bob and Citizen. First of all I come from the school of Stannard and hold closer documentation and more modern apparatus than old “testimonies” from conquering religious faction (hence the nonsense about Inca’s and Aztec’s). If you would have looked at the so-called “sources” you would have noticed their origins. Both of you need to read “Open Veins Of Latin America” by Eduardo Galeano which holds more complete sources than any that you cite. There is not one a romantic statement in my posts and to be frank none of it comes from Zinn as accused, however when one reduces what you are saying it does nothing but give grist to colonial fables which say that the colonials came to convert the natives from savagery, etc. If you would have checked the same fables were used against both Muslims and Jews in Spain, etc. I do not have the time nor the will to educate you.

        • VR says:

          I might also add (for Bob and Citizen) that your arguments and flawed sourcing helps you mitigate the atrocious and inexcusable European activity, of which depth we have not yet begun to descend. This is merely an extension of your further defense of a developed system from the same genre, which helps to bring to light many of the other arguments (which masquerade) which have no sound foundation in reality. That about wraps it up.

        • bob says:

          If you would have looked at the so-called “sources” you would have noticed their origins.

          Newsflash: These aren’t fables – Its standard archaeological and anthropological studies that show osteological evidence for cannabalism and large scale violence.

          This subject started to be “ok” to research in the late 1980′s and early 1990′s, though it still fought against people trying to maintain the peaceful savage myth.

          The massive 90-95 percent wipeout from Smallpox is well documented from modern sources and isn’t disupted from mainstream sources.

        • VR says:

          Newsflash bob, you need to learn the difference between inferential “proof” and proof positive, this dishonest type of banter coming you is NOT acceptable and you are not dealing with a scientific novice here, understand?

          INFERENTIAL PROOF, VS. PROOF POSITIVE

        • bob says:

          You aren’t dealing with a novice in anthropology and archaeology, either.

          You are definitively wrong here.

          Some argue that it was “accidental,” and what they try to do is prove that the colonial settlers did not have a knowledge of the transmission of the disease – small pox as an example. However this is not true,

          This is quantifiably false. Demonstrably false.

          First of all I come from the school of Stannard and hold closer documentation and more modern apparatus than old “testimonies” from conquering religious faction (hence the nonsense about Inca’s and Aztec’s). If you would have looked at the so-called “sources” you would have noticed their origins.

          If you would have seen, both Diamond and Mann use a wide range of current sources to define their work. Keeley et. al working on violence have to use osteological and other methods to define violence.

          You are quick to insult, but you do not know that the corpus of accepted and mainstream work here is in agreement on how the continents were wiped out by an unintentional virgin field epidemic. Moreover, the fundamentaly racist concept of the “noble savage” is thoroughly debunked, as there is linguistic, archaeological, and genetic evidence that shows how entire populations were wiped out due to violence. This is widely accepted.

        • VR says:

          Secondly, lets say for the sake of argument, what are we supposed to take from this? “Those dirty Indians had what was coming to them, they deserved to be executed and treated like vermin?” If that is the case none of the Europeans should have survived. You’re arguments are not only fallacious, they are inexcusable.

        • bob says:

          Strawman argument.

        • VR says:

          Apparently your defenders (censors) on this site want to remove any further comment that what I am saying is not a strawman argument. Very well, let me quote someone else who knows exactly what I am saying and how it is the truth (lets see if they will help you out again by censoring what is quoted) –

          “As Europeans began leaving their shores in the 15th century to search for resources to feed the growing capitalist system and later, to establish markets to consume its products, they encountered indigenous peoples in practically every piece of inhabitable land on earth, including the most remote islands of the Pacific. “Cannibalism” became emblematic of “Savagery,” a justification for conquering, converting, enslaving, or killing the natives they encountered, while appropriating their resources and lands. European scholars argued over an either/or fallacy: were the indigenous peoples innately perverse and therefore, unredeemable, or were they Noble Savages who could be saved? (Arens 78). The assumption that the indigenous peoples were at a lower stage of biological, cultural, or ethical development was not often questioned. But Arens has argued that the belief that Christians had the moral right to conquer and rule because the natives were cannibals was invalid because its premise was unsupported–there has never been reliable eyewitness account of native cannibalism (181). Whether there was evidence of cannibalism or not, it was absurd to argue that European colonizers were more “civilized” than natives. As the 17th century French scholar Montaigne points out in his essay “Of Cannibals,” Christians perpetrated acts even more inhumane than cannibalism in the name of their–they tortured their victims alive:

          I think there is more barbarity in eating a man alive than in eating him dead; in tearing by tortures and the rack of body still full of feeling, in roasting a man bit by bit, in having him bitten and mangled by dogs and swines (as we have not only read but seen within fresh memory, not among ancient enemies, but among neighbors and fellow citizens, and what is worse, on the pretext of piety and religion) than in roasting and eating him after he is dead. (155)”

          TRADITIONS

        • bob says:

          Apparently your defenders (censors)

          What?

          Focus and stop diverting. You want to make this some moral indictment. In doing so, you created a huge blood libel and tried away the unintentional virgin field epidemic that wiped out 90-95 percent of the Americas.

          Some argue that it was “accidental,” and what they try to do is prove that the colonial settlers did not have a knowledge of the transmission of the disease – small pox as an example. However this is not true,

          Wrong.

          You try to (incorrectly) attribute the works I bring here documenting prehistoric violence and warfare that wipe out entire tribes as “I come from the school of Stannard and hold closer documentation and more modern apparatus than old “testimonies” from conquering religious faction,” but then you bring… testimonies.

          Biochemical evidence of cannibalism at a prehistoric Puebloan site in southwestern Colorado
          link to nature.com

          As I was citing Keeley below, on how prehistoric warfare here as more deadly, more frequent, and more ruthless with massacres, trophy taking, looting etc.

          Prehistoric warfare in the American Southwest

          There is debate on the intensity, but the myth of the “noble savage” is dead.

          People are people and skin phenotype doesnt make you more awesoem or barbaric. Quelle Surprise.

        • VR says:

          Yes, you’re defenders that believe you cannot take direct confrontation censored my post, it is not the first time on this site – it does not make for good flow of argumentation. Apparently they like how you defend genocidal activity.

          “Focus and stop diverting.” No, you focus and stop dissecting back away from the argument. You answer how biological warfare can be traced back to BC (see my link) and could not possibly be introduced into the disputed regions. Stop making strident statements like you have some authority and are going to set me straight, because you don’t. So you focus.

          You want me to lambaste an entire region for 28 corpses that do not necessarily show signs of cannibalism, you know as well as I do that there is plenty of heated debate on this point – why are you pressing cannibalism in this context? Why are you pressing some trophy taking in a prehistoric time, because it was preeminently characteristic of the atrocious activity of the colonials (artifact human remains that you can see to this day)? Is you thrust to alleviate that these asses traveled thousands of miles to enslave and exploit people and trying to make them wholly other? What does the introduction of warfare mean? Does it wash clean what was done to the indigenous population?

          There are varying degrees of warfare among the indigenous, none of them end up by enslaving other tribes, and even the disappearance of some can just as easily be attributed to resource depletion as well as some sort of tribal invasion – why defer instantly to warfare? In fact, there is no evidence anywhere of warfare among the tribes to total destruction or near total destruction (unlike the European theater). In fact, if the indigenous were so savage than what did it take to wipe them out during the colonial era? Something you should think about, Now, focus.

        • VR says:

          From that day –

          A GOOD DAY

          The general rode for sixteen days
          The horses were thirsty and tired
          On the trail of a renegade chief
          One he’d come to admire
          The soldiers hid behind the hills
          That surrounded the village
          And he rode down to warn the chief
          They’d come to conquer and pillage

          Lay down your arms
          Lay down your spear
          The chief’s eyes were sad
          But showed no sign of fear

          (chorus)
          It is a good day to die
          Oh my children dry your eyes
          It is a good day to die

          He spoke of the days before the white man came
          With his guns and whisky
          He told of a time a long time ago
          Before what you call history
          The general couldn’t believe his words
          Nor the look on his face
          But he knew these people would rather die
          Then have to live in this disgrace

          What law have I broken
          What wrong have I done
          That makes you want to bury me
          Upon this trail of blood

          (chorus)

          We cared for the land and the land cared for us
          And that’s the way it’s always been
          Never asked for more never asked too much
          And now you tell me this is the end

          I laid down my weapon
          Laid down my bow
          Now you want to drive me out
          With no place left to go

          (chorus)

          And he turned to his people and said dry your eyes
          We’ve been blessed and we are thankful
          Raise your voices to the sky
          It is a good day to die.”

          To this –

          SWEET HOME

          Now, do you want me to go into the nuclear explanation of what was done to the indigenous population during the cold war? The radioactive colonization? I am sure everyone would like to hear about that, and I could probably count on one hand who knows about that here.

        • bob says:

          confrontation censored my post

          It might have to do with your ad hominems, strawmen, and lack of content. Its not a conspiracy against you.

  4. Howard says:

    Aren’t there more direct and compelling reasons why that analogy is so ignorant of history and misguided? Namely that the whole thrust of international law in the post WWII era, (the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Geneva Convention of 1949 as well as numerous Security Council and General Assembly resolutions) has been to prevent such injustices as is currently happening to the Palestininas from recurring.

    • Kathleen says:

      Only applies to certain people. Don’t ya know

      • eee says:

        The laws are so efficient. Without them they may have been genocides in Rwanda, Cambodia or Sudan. Every time one of you mentions those useless laws I laugh. You aren’t even willing to enforce those laws to grant Shalit visitation rights from the Red Cross. Yet you keep talking about them as if you are serious about them.

        • Shingo says:

          Really eee, you gotta stop digging. You’re sounding increasingly deranged with each post.

          Do you really want to compare the plight of Shalit with the 1000 Palestinians Israel has imprisoned for administrative reasons?

          And what’s bringing up Rwanda, Cambodia or Sudan pro? That there are worse human rights cases in the world than Israel?

        • Citizen says:

          Perhaps the world will wake up and get on your wagon, eee–the Nuremberg Trials never happened, German reparations never occur, international laws against war crimes and crimes against humanity should be ignored–we may all follow your homeland’s spirit. That should be wonderful.

        • talknic says:

          eee

          ” Every time one of you mentions those useless laws I laugh”

          Most criminals do.

          ” You aren’t even willing to enforce those laws to grant Shalit visitation rights from the Red Cross.”

          No such law exists. Hamas are not a UN Member or a state, they haven’t signed or ratified the GC’s. The only Laws that apply to their military activities are the Laws of War.

          Under the Laws of War letters to family are all that is required in respect to contact with the outside world. No visits. Not even from the Red Cross.

          Furthermore read the UN Charter. Rwanda, Cambodia, Sudan are events happening within Sovereign States (whether we like their actions or not) . Israel is acting OUTSIDE the extent of it’s sovereignty.

          So basically you know SFA about the law, SFA about the UN , SFA about anything much, judging by your posts.

  5. Another problem with the Native American analogy is that it could be applied to Zionists as well as anti-Zionists. How is saying the Jews have a right to return to their “ancestral homeland” different from saying that Native Americans do?

    • homingpigeon says:

      You’re right, the Native American analogy has been used to buttress both the Zionist and Palestinian case. One question we wrestle with is how many centuries after one civilization displaces another does the second one have legitimate rights to the real estate in question?

      But the analogy of Native Americans with the Palestinians is much stronger – foreign immigrant settlers with better technology and education displacing a local indigenous population. The Zionist analogy would be if the current population of the US was descended from a two millenium mix of Native Americans and various immigrants, and a new wave of immigrants arrived claiming to be of the same religion as the people here two millenia ago and therefore having the right to displace the current inhabitants of North America.

  6. Danaa says:

    Three comments on Ali’s excellent point:

    1. Often forgotten but ubiquitously present is, at least in Israel, the lamentation that Israel is simply unlucky timing-wise. Were Israel to happen 40 year prior, no one would complain so much about the displacement and cleansing of the original inhabitants. In other word, what you often hear inside Israel is that it’ really unfair that the american and the English “got away” with it, and they can’t. Disclaimer: can’t say I ever heard such sentiments from Jewish Americans, including ardent zionists. Not in such crude terms, at least.

    2. Another argument you hear from the zionist side is that they did not do anything one tenth a bad to the Palestinians as what the original american and Spanish settlers did to the indigenous Indians. There is truth in that, historically speaking. However that does not mean they would not do the same – and worse – if they thought for one second they could get away with it. The hatred and contempt for arabs among Israelis is, indeed, that deep. I am convinced that if Israel could have transfered palestinians en mass, doing their own “veil of tears “and/or found a way for targeted bio-weapons to eliminate the majority of palestinians, they would. And fewer than 30% would lose any sleep over that, of which half would recover soon enough to produce a series of ‘shoot and cry” docudramas. I realize Ali cannot ay these thing as he must continue to work with Israelis/zionists of all stripes (the good, the bad and the ugly). But I can.

    3. One big difference to bring up is that the American colonizers did not actually try and pan the Indians off on some “surrounding” countries, as Israel would like to do to the palestinians. In other word, the americans understood they were “stuck” with the indigenous people, one way or the other. So they did “the other”. Israel OTOH, is trying to have its cake and eat it too – get rid of them but do so “humanely”, ie, by transfer. After all, the Palestinians have somewhere to go, no? cf. there are all those Arab countries, and they (Israel) need/want just one small part of it….

    • Citizen says:

      Well, that’s right about the timing. Unlucky for Israel it was not founded as a state during the height of the Bismarck Era. Israel could have gone hog wild with lebensraum same as Germany eventually did. Israel was also unlucky in that the natives did not die off from diseases inadvertently brought over by the relatively immune settlers. Hence we have Israel doing everything it its power always to emulate Germany’s past, which unluckily is well known today. That’s why Brand Israel and Hasbara have such a hard job. The world also knows about the Bernays-Goebbels method of painting nice prop pictures for the masses. As Charlie Brown says, “why’s everybody always picking on me?” He’s a lethal clown, eh?

    • Shingo says:

      Was summarized Danaa,

      1. Every other country in the world has left the 19th century behind them, because they all understand that the age of colonization and empire-building is Dead And Buried.

      All but one. One country that – uniquely – thinks that because it missed out on the 19th century it is now entitled to play catch-up.

      2. The same logic could be used to argue that Charles Manson should have been left off on good behavior on the grounds that there are worse mass murderers before him and since.

      3. Reminds me of my favorite joke about so called Liberal Zionists. Right wing Zionists will argue that the Palestinians need to be driven out of Palestine. Liberal Zionists will insist that the buses be air conditioned.

  7. Kathleen says:

    I have never ever heard Chomsky make such a weak argument. Well they did it.

    The other huge issue is while Europeans were slaughtering native Americans and stealing their land who was howling? The native Americans. How does that go two wrongs do not make it right.

    And how many nations, world leaders, CIA middle east analyst, Former Presidents, 9/11 commission reports, people willing to blow themselves up over the issue were repeating that it is this stealing of land, bulldozing of Palestinian homes is one of the major reasons if not THE REASON for the hatred and attacks on the U.S.?

    • Citizen says:

      Yes it is THE REASON above all (e.g., continued access to oil) both because the post-Nuremberg world doesn’t like war crimes and crimes against humanity, and because it’s a good pretext for ruling Arab clans who rely on this sense of justice to maintain and increase their power by diversion and excitement at the expense of their own extended people within the borders drawn up for them after WW1.

  8. Potsherd2 says:

    I’ll make another point, if allowed: assimilation.

    Many Americans have Indian ancestry. Many enrolled members of the tribes have significant amounts of white blood. To turn over my house to some descendants of the Indians would be to evict the descendants already living here now.

    • Citizen says:

      This is true. If you travel the western states especially you may encounter many white-looking people who will be quick to tell you they are part-native American, and many, many are just that. Meanwhile, Israel does not allow its Jewish citizens to “go Indian.” What happened to the Arab who was being prosecuted because he simply said nothing when the Jewish woman wanted a quick lay in broad daylight and simply assumed he was a Jew?

  9. Mooser says:

    Gosh, it only took two weeks from the day Phil allowed a full compliment of Ziocaine trolls to invest the site, until he starts writing posts wondering why Israel can’t kill all the Palestinians, since American colonists killed all the Indians. If there’s anything I like, it’s a upper-middle-aged guy who knows his own mind and has a solid moral foundation.

    I like to look at it like this: Since American colonists killed all the Indians, why can’t any given country kill all its Jews?

  10. Avi says:

    Finally, it is disingenuous to make this an issue solely about property rights. Property rights are a difficult issue that would affect a fraction of Palestinians and Israelis. Most Palestinians, however, could return to land in Israel that is currently empty. Israelis reject the right of return primarily on ethnoreligious grounds: they just don’t want too many Palestinians polluting the “Jewish democracy.”

    In fact, the land from the river to the sea could accommodate thrice the population it currently does, provided, of course, natural resources such as water and minerals are used and distributed in accordance to needs, not ethnicity. Similarly, the region cold flourish as an economic power should the borders be knocked down and free trade took place between the countries of the region.

    Israel’s long-term survival relies on favorable treaties with the west, but not on regional prosperity. Israel was never meant to be viable in the long term, it can’t.

    • Citizen says:

      Additional to some activities by the white man smacking of genocide, and the more significant dying off of the red man due to exposure to diseases new to them, a third factor in the red man’s physical demise was that most native American tribes needed a really lot of space to live as they had always done; in comparison, most Palestinians are traditionally farmers–no herds of buffalo ever roamed in Mandateland, nor has there ever been immense forests jammed full of good hunting picks.

  11. Its nice to hear some flexibility from Ali Abunimeh on the form that he hopes for right of return.

  12. >> The only reason the United States can so easily ignore the rights of Native Americans is that they suffered near-genocide. Palestinians today are 50 percent of the population in their historic homeland and cannot simply be ignored as they could be if they were one percent. The United States, Canada, Australia did “finish the job” and those are the settler-colonial states that survive.

    Yeah, I am not sure this is the best argument dispelling the equivalency between natives in N.A. and Palestinians in, umm, Palestine.

    Most natives in N.A. were killed by disease, not driven out by terrorist measures (although certainly some were.) Moreover, the land back then was very, very sparsely populated and surely there was room for all. Furthermore, no natives were driven across borders into foreign countries, such as there were. In other words, there are no natives sitting in Canada with ancestral rights in the U.S. that they cannot return to because of some Homeland Security border guard.

    But most importantly, natives today in N.A. have full civil rights. Indeed, in Canada they have enhanced rights: free University education, rights to eternal dole, and preferential treatment before the judiciary.

    So the next time someone pulls that argument on you, just say that all you asking for is that Palestinians get reated the same way the Sioux, the Objibway and the Cree get treated. That’ll shut ‘em up real quick. N49.

  13. jon s says:

    The analogy is flawed on several counts. The most serious one is that Israel is not a colonial state.
    The oft-repeated contention that Zionism is akin to 19th-century European colonialism is simply wrong. There are some superficial similarities, but the differences outweigh the similarities.
    Zionism indeed arose in Europe, and originally endeavored to bring a largely European ethnic group to settle in the East, while taking advantage of the weakness of the local authorities (the Ottoman empire, at the time).
    But:
    Colonialism was designed and directed by the “mother country” (Britain, France, etc.),for the benefit of the mother-country. Zionism had no mother-country which sent and supported the immigrants. In colonialism profits were extracted from the colony and repatriated to Europe. In Zionism investment in Israel and any profits, stayed in Israel and were largely re-invested, for further development.

    Moreover, Zionism was based on the perception that the Jews were returning to their ancestral homeland. No British settler in North America or India, or French settler in canada or Algeria, had the idea that they were re-connecting with their historical roots. The Jews did not come as foreign conquerors, and were not accompanied by an army and a navy. While colonialists could simply take land by force and drive out the existing population – the Zionists purchased land at the going price, from Arab landowners, at least until 1948.

    • Avi says:

      False, false and false again.

      As some random guy on the internet, you sure make a lot of unsubstantiated grandiose statements. One of those statements is that Israel is not a colonial state. In fact, Israel fits the colonial model perfectly.

      As usual, you don’t let facts get in the way of myth-making.

      • Mooser says:

        “False, false and false again.”

        Thank you Avi. I was just about to get started on him, but I saw your comment.

        Apparently jon s. has never heard of the East India Company, or the many, many other private consortioums or eben individuals who made up the bulk of the colonial efforts. Among lots of other things.

    • David Samel says:

      jon, your distinctions are without a difference. You are correct when you say that the Zionists who emigrated to Palestine did not say, “We want your land for our existing country,” whether it be Poland or Russia or whatever; they said, “We want your land for our future country.” From the perspective of the indigenous population, there simply was no difference. The actual demand was just as unacceptable as the traditional imperialist demand that was not made.

      Moreover, the Zionist claim to be returning to an ancestral homeland after millenia of dispersal was also about as offensive and rejectable as the white European claim to racial, moral, economic, philosophical superiority made in traditional cases of imperialism. Neither of these distinctions made the Zionist enterprise of emigration and colonization one bit easier for the indigenous victims to stomach than other cases of imperialism.

      • Mooser says:

        I have a feeling that “jon s” is very, very hooked on PEP pills.
        And PEP pills, of course, are the gateway drug to a full-fledged ziocaine habit!

      • VR says:

        Good points Mr. Samel, and lets not forget in the mix of the Zionist fallacious arguments are the superiority claims, they are legion coming from the occupying Zionists. But your point about everything being the same in the end was sound.

      • jon s says:

        Avi :you sure have a great debating technique, you simply assert that the other guy’s points are “false, false, false again”. Wow, you won!
        Mooser: I’m aware of the East India company. All those companies had the backing of the European states. The Zionist enterprise had no such support.
        David: I agree that from the point of view of the Palesinians, the distinctions that I pointed out didn’t much matter. But those distinctions help to understand present realities, and also why Israel didn’t disappear at about the same time all those colonial empires did – because Israel does not fit the colonial model.

  14. yourstruly says:

    One important difference between the justice for Native-Americans and justice for Native Palestinians is that the former aren’t calling for an international BDS of their colonial oppressor, America, whereas, the latter are calling for BDS of their oppressor, Israel. Another is that while there are no N-A communities currently under siege, in Gaza alone a million and a half Palestinians are under a brutal and inhumane siege. Thus, if our helping indigenous cultures to survive is prioritized according to how endangered one indigenous culture compared to another, being that Gaza is the Warsaw Ghetto in slow motion, Palestine would have to be a top priority. The top priority for us Americans, given that Isreal’s brutal treatment of Palestinians endangers U.S. troops in Afghanistan and national security here at home, as well as the top priority for Jewish-Americans, given that Zionists insist that it commits its crimes in the name of Jews everywhere. Meanwhile, of course, the struggle for the rights of indigenous people everywhere has to not only continue, but to be intensified.

  15. David Samel says:

    I think one of the most important points made here is the one briefly addressed by William Burns and homingpigeon. It is most disingenuous for Zionists to make the Native American analogy. After all, their original raison d’etre is on far shakier grounds than any NA claim. If Native Americans have no legitimate claim to return to the lands from which they were driven 100-300 years ago, then surely the Jewish people had no legitimate claim to return to the land from which they were driven 2000 years ago. The two most obvious differences between these two situations – the length of time and the questionable claim of actual ancestry by today’s Jews – make the Zionist claim far less legitimate. In fact, any Zionist who makes the NA analogy is practically conceding that the Zionist scheme to reclaim ancestors’ land was fatally flawed from the outset. So when did it acquire legitimacy? After the Holocaust, when it became necessary to punish Palestinians for the sins of Europeans?

    Another problem discussed above is that Native Americans have the same rights to travel freely, acquire property, vote, and participate in US civil life as every other US citizen. These things are denied Palestinians. In the US, the question is whether present-day equal rights can make up for the terrible history suffered by Native Americans. In Israel, the question is whether the more recently arrived population will ever grant equal rights to those whose roots in Palestine go back much further.

    • Avi says:

      The two most obvious differences between these two situations – the length of time and the questionable claim of actual ancestry by today’s Jews – make the Zionist claim far less legitimate. In fact, any Zionist who makes the NA analogy is practically conceding that the Zionist scheme to reclaim ancestors’ land was fatally flawed from the outset. So when did it acquire legitimacy?

      It acquires legitimacy the minute one of the Zionists invokes the word of god. Manifest Destiny trumps all other reasons.

      But, in all seriousness, the favored talking point that is often injected at this juncture by Zionists is the one where today’s Israel is fait accompli, therefore, one must be realistic and work around the facts that are already on the ground. Here, the ‘boulder’ must remain in its current form, unlike in the case of Iran.

      • eee says:

        Avi,

        One can also be unrealistic and make things much worse for the Palestinians. For example, Hamas in Gaza did that.

        • Shingo says:

          False eee,

          It was Israel that made things much worse for the Palestinians in Gaza. Hamas stuck to the ceasefire, Israel broke it because they wanted a war.

        • Avi says:

          eee December 5, 2010 at 6:18 pm

          Avi,

          One can also be unrealistic and make things much worse for the Palestinians. For example, Hamas in Gaza did that.

          In early 2006, Hamas won elections in Gaza. Israel responded by imposing a siege, assassinating Hamas parliament members and kidnapping regular civilians.

          In the summer of 2006, Israel, yet again abducted two Palestinain brothers from Gaza and disappeared them into its prison system.

          A day or two later, Hamas managed to capture Gil’ad Shalit.

          Israel continued with the siege and the assassinations. Hamas intensified its rocket attacks. In 2008, a ceasefire was brokered only to be violated by Israel on November 4, 2008. Hamas abided by the terms of the agreement and according to Israeli government sources launched no rockets.

          On December 27, 2008, Israel unleashed hell on earth on Gaza citizens despite Hamas offering to extend the ceasefire if Israel only abide by the terms of the ceasefire agreement and lifted the siege. Israel, ignored the offer.

          So your repeated lies are nothing but hasbara. Try the truth if you’re so concerned with reality for a change. Otherwise, put a sock it in because I’m sick of your nonsense.

        • Mooser says:

          Ah yes, the Palestinians-as-hostages threat.
          “All right, Israel-criticisers! Make one move, and the Arab gwets it in the neck!”

          “eee”, you make me so proud to be Jewish! You uphold the old traditions. Tell me if you need help with that Golden Calf statue!

        • David Samel says:

          eee, it seems to me that you interpret realism as acknowledging Israel’s vastly superior fire power and its ability to use military force to enforce its will upon people with an extremely limited ability to defend themselves. No matter how skewed the military imbalance, people will never concede the right of others to rule over them. It would be realistic for the Israelis to understand that they cannot obtain a lasting peace by imposing injustice from a gun.

      • Citizen says:

        And the boulder keeps on growing, even if the hand that feeds it belongs to Uncle Sam, it’s ultimate only backer in its current endeavours. How much aid will those four mini island nations realistically owned by Uncle Sam and Uncle Aussie give the Israelis if the US decides to try a few sticks rather than endless carrots, or simply go along with the rest of the world’s nations? How much diplomatic help at the UN will they give Israel? Their respective hi-chairs won’t even be seen.

      • VR says:

        “Manifest Destiny trumps all other reasons.”

        Good point Avi, and who claimed Manifest Destiny centuries ago?

        • Citizen says:

          What’s your point, VR? Who debunked Manifest Destiny and made it a laughing stock in American pop culture? Time to do the same with Israel’s version.

        • VR says:

          I have Citizen, have you not read my posts in the past? However, I will not divorce one manifest destiny from another, because this is always the rhetoric of the settler state. You must see the commonality, and both are to be condemned, one supports the other.

        • Citizen says:

          Yes, I have read your posts in the past; I usually agreed with them. Nobody is asking you to divorce one manifest destiny from another. I also agree with the stance that American exceptionalism and Israeli exceptionalism are working together to no good end. That’s the new code word that is passing PC muster these days, as I know you know.

  16. Kathleen says:

    Chomsky and anyone else who makes this argument is trying to distract. And it works for just awhile
    link to counterpunch.org

    Native American land shrinkage
    link to noshootfoot.blogspot.com

    Palestinians and Native Americans
    The Inherent Struggle for Freedom and Justice
    link to counterpunch.org

  17. eee says:

    All the people answering my post completely missed the point. The situation in Israel/Palestine is the responsibility of the whole world. To characterize my refugee grandparents as “colonialists” and to hold them responsible for what happened in 1948 is a sick joke. If you want to undo what you think are historical injustices at the expense of Israelis, while ignoring the historical injustices that have befallen Jews, you are just hypocrites.

    Let me reiterate again, over my dead body will there be a Palestinian right of return until the injustice of what was done to Jews in Poland and Arab countries is addressed to our satisfaction. We either compensate everybody involved for historical injustices or any solution will not be just. This is just common sense. Again, feel free to cut us out and have the Arab and Poles compensate the Palestinians directly.

    • Citizen says:

      Eee, I’m so surprized–you’re so grateful for all the reparations and foreign aid showered on Israel over so many decades. You’re welcome. Who’s responsible for what happened in 1948? Any Jew born today in Scarsdale can hop on over to Israel and take over ancient native land tomorrow, just boot the natives out of their homes. Ah, yes, those natives are the responsible ones–I forgot, you told us that already.

    • Shingo says:

      “The situation in Israel/Palestine is the responsibility of the whole world.”

      They share the responsibility to a degree, but the crime belongs entirely to Israel 100%. The West share the responsibility by acting as enablers for Israel.

      “To characterize my refugee grandparents as “colonialists” and to hold them responsible for what happened in 1948 is a sick joke.”

      No it’s a tragic reality. Israelis inflicted not only historical injustices but continue to inflict them to this day. To host Israel accountable is not doing so are the expense of Israelis because Israel are entirely to blame.

      “Let me reiterate again, over my dead body will there be a Palestinian right of return until the injustice of what was done to Jews in Poland and Arab countries is addressed to our satisfaction.”

      You can repeat it until you are dead, what you are doing is justifying injustice on one group of people in the name of injustice inflicted by another on Jews. Your logic is morally and intellectually bankrupt, and dare I say it, sick and deranged.

      “We either compensate everybody involved for historical injustices or any solution will not be just. This is just common sense. ”

      Fine, so Israel should return all the aid it has received and all the Holocaust compensation it has received until all historical injustices have been rectified right eee?

      I suggest we begin with you. Please return all the money and assistance your family has received and then insist that your neighbors do the same.

      There’s a good boy.

      • hophmi says:

        “Fine, so Israel should return all the aid it has received and all the Holocaust compensation it has received until all historical injustices have been rectified right eee?”

        It ain’t a drop in the bucket, Shingle, not a drop in the bucket.

        • Citizen says:

          Tell that to the jobless Americans, hophmi. I’d say even one F-35 is a tad more than a drop in the bucket. Merely the direct aid we give unconditionally to Israel every year woud pay for all the American Pell grants for our struggling American college students.

    • occupyresist says:

      All the people answering my post completely missed the point.

      Don’t think you bothered to read one of the many intelligent responses you got.

      The situation in Israel/Palestine is the responsibility of the whole world.

      Does that mean that the Palestinians have the right to take a piece of land in Europe to solve the conflict, according to your distorted understanding of justice?

      To characterize my refugee grandparents as “colonialists” and to hold them responsible for what happened in 1948 is a sick joke.

      Witting or unwitting, they were serving a colonial enterprise. And it is a sick joke, for the Palestinians to be made to FORGET the ethnic cleansing of 1948 and forget the injustice that has not been made right to this day.

      If you want to undo what you think are historical injustices at the expense of Israelis, while ignoring the historical injustices that have befallen Jews, you are just hypocrites.

      This ‘at the expense of Israelis’ part I don’t get. If there is a 2 state-solution, you’re telling me this would be at the ‘expense of Israelis’? If there is a 1-state-solution, with equal rights for all, how would this be at the ‘expense of Israelis’? If the right of return were addressed in a fair and just manner, what exactly would Israelis be giving up? Their long-held view that they are a light unto the nations? That they have the most moral army in the world? Big deal. A ‘Jewish’ state? It would only be Jewish demographically. So what? Learn to fucking co-exist, you’d be helping this region recover from all the sectarian and religious tension so rife in it that were exacerbated by the advent of Zionism.

      Let me reiterate again, over my dead body will there be a Palestinian right of return until the injustice of what was done to Jews in Poland and Arab countries is addressed to our satisfaction.

      To whose satisfaction? Another Holocaust Industry?

      The Palestinians’ right of return will be addressed, like it or not, eeel. I don’t see Israeli Jews asking for their right to return to Arab countries, frankly. Do you? Oh wait, the ‘connection to the soil’ only goes one way. You want compensation.

      We either compensate everybody involved for historical injustices or any solution will not be just. Again, feel free to cut us out and have the Arab and Poles compensate the Palestinians directly.

      There’s the crux of it: We, the Israelis, have done no wrong. We merely attempted to get back from the Gentile black hole what is rightfully ours. It doesn’t matter that it was another group of Gentiles that wronged us, all Gentiles hate us anyway. So, let the Gentiles deal with each other. We can never do any wrong.

      What right do YOU have to steal someone else’s property because another person was violent to you? In whose warped mind, except the anarchist’s, the outlaw’s, the thief’s, the tyrant’s, is it OK for you to compensate yourself by means of committing a wrong to a people that did not perpetrate the original crimes committed against you?

      • eee says:

        Don’t be dense. My refugee grandparents were in a no win situation. Their only viable solution was Palestine. They were not stealing anything from anybody. They were surviving. Take off your blinkers. They were not compensating themselves at someone’s else expense. And no, they did nothing wrong. Any normal other person in their situation would have done the same.

        • Shingo says:

          “Any normal other person in their situation would have done the same.”

          That doesn’t mean they did nothing wrong. You can justify what they did under the circumstances, but it was not a victimless crime.

        • pjdude says:

          the hell they weren’t stealing anything they took property with out paying for it by definition that is theft. um yes they were compensating themselves at someelses expense the palestinians by taking their property and their rights. and just because something is understandable doesn’t mean it is right. PAlestine was not a viable solution it was an arroganbt self centered solution that would cause far more problems than it solved. you and your just didn’t bother to think beyond the want

        • Citizen says:

          Eee, is there any limit at all to what X can do to Y (who happens to be dwelling there where X feels the need to go) so that X can survive? If so, please describe those limits, so we can better understand your common sense argument.

        • Shingo says:

          And eee, you might want to explain why Israel continues to do today what your grandparents did in 1948.

        • Sumud says:

          Don’t be dense. My refugee grandparents were in a no win situation.

          This is a valid point people.

          eee – you should try talking about your actual life situation a little more, instead of just making revolting generalisations like you have above, saying Palestinains should be punished for things they had nothing to do with. You know who said that about jews right? Some of your opinions will have been formed by biography so help us understand how you got to where you are today

          My understanding of what occurred between ’45 and ’48 isn’t complete but from what I do know the Jewish Agency conspired to reduce options for European jewish refugees to only Palestine. So, as much as jewish refugee immigration to Palestine was extremely harmful to Palestinians, the jewish refugees were themselves being victimised by their own leaders.

          eee – you describe your grandparents situation eee as a “no-win situation”, which sounds at least like you acknowledge that jewish refugee immigration was problematic. Your proposed solution is Jabotinsky’s Iron Wall – force, might, eternal domination of the Palestinians. Surely 60 years it has to be obvious they are going to stand steadfast (Sumud) until their rights have been observed. There are pathways other than “over my dead body”, including ones that could result in a win-win outcome. I wrote about it here:

          link to mondoweiss.net

          …or at least started to, but you haven’t responded. Please do!

        • RoHa says:

          “My refugee grandparents were in a no win situation. Their only viable solution was Palestine.”

          For refugees to flee to Palestine is understandable. For them to then join in a movement intended to dispossess, drive out, and usurp the Palestinians is unforgivable. Your grandparents lost their moral standing the minute they failed to oppose the Zionists.

        • tree says:

          Sumud,

          Have you read Grodzinsky’s “In the Shadow of the Holocaust”? Its subtitle is “The Struggle Between Jews and Zionists in the Aftermath of World War II” and it covers the actions of the pre-state Zionists to prevent the repatriation of displaced persons any place other than Palestine. Also, one of Tom Segev’s books has a chapter on this interference in the rights of Jewish refugees. Perhaps its “The Seventh Million”, or maybe “1949″. I don’t have my books handy to confirm which it is.

    • >> over my dead body will there be a Palestinian right of return until the injustice of what was done to Jews in Poland and Arab countries is addressed to our satisfaction.

      Given the obdurate stance of you and your fellow Zionists, that just may be what it comes down to, unfortunately. N49.

      • eee says:

        You tried in 1948 and failed. You tried in 67 and failed. You tried in 73 and failed. Keep trying. Don’t complain about the results though.

        • >> You tried in 1948 and failed. You tried in 67 and failed. You tried in 73 and failed. Keep trying.

          This is the Zionist negotiating position. Taxi is right. -N49.

        • Shingo says:

          “You tried in 67 and failed.”

          False. Israel started that war and succeeded.

          “You tried in 73 and failed. ”

          Israel would have failed were it not for Nixon coming to Israel’s aid.

          “Don’t complain about the results though.”

          Hezbollah kicked your ass in 2000 and 2006. Why are you complaining?

        • Citizen says:

          Americaliterally saved Israel’s tukas in 1973. And America is saving it now both militarily and diplomatically. Don’t complain if the Americans wake up and decide to cut the rope because the boat being towed is full of people who don’t hold the same moral and ethical values as America. Besides, we’re tired of Israel stealing our inventions and information and selling them to China, Russia, and others.

        • pjdude says:

          why do you keep referring the wars Israel started?

    • Avi says:

      And let’s not forget global warming for its culpability in the conflict.

    • yourstruly says:

      Your martyrdome won’t be necessary because sanctions will suffice to get you out. And if needed they’ll be forthcoming, once we succeed in turning the American people against your colonial enterprise.

    • Kathleen says:

      “Again, feel free to cut us out and have the Arab and Poles compensate the Palestinians directly.”

      Twisted. And your grandparents were indeed colonialist if they lived on land stolen from Palestinians.

    • Potsherd2 says:

      The situation in Israel/Palestine is the responsibility of Zionist colonialists, and eee’s warped notion of justice is the sick joke, sicker because it is shared by the Zionist majority.

      • Shingo says:

        “eee’s warped notion of justice is the sick joke, sicker because it is shared by the Zionist majority.”

        That’s Zionism for you.

    • Mooser says:

      “The situation in Israel/Palestine is the responsibility of the whole world. “

      Because they didn’t kill the Jews while they had the chance?

      What do you know! What goes around comes around!

      • eee says:

        No, because they didn’t give the Jews Bavaria after WWII and because they did not let Jews immigrate freely to any country of their choice.

        Also, who gave the British mandate over Palestine? Who approved the partition plan?

        • Shingo says:

          “Also, who gave the British mandate over Palestine? Who approved the partition plan?”

          Are we going to have the San Remo debate are we?

        • andrew r says:

          That’s easy, the British and no one.

          Bet you thought I was gonna say League of Nations and UN, didn’cha.

        • Shingo says:

          Actually Andrew,

          The British were the Mandatory. The Mandatory was bound by the Articles on Mandaate. This was agreed at the San Remo Conference

        • pjdude says:

          the mandates or at least the class a one’s like palestine were not the mandatory countries to give away but to be held in trust for the NATIVE population until such time they could take over the reigns of power.

        • Citizen says:

          Naw, we know the Balfour Declaration was addressed to Rothschild.

        • yourstruly says:

          Wait a minute, both during and after WW II, the limitations on where Eastern Europe’s Jewry could go were set by Zionists, whose operating principle was to block all exits out of the killing fields (no matter how many of those left behind would end up in the gas chambers*), except for those exits leading to Palestine. What’s more, Zionists, by pressuring countries such as Germany to close their doors to Russian Jews, still show this same determination to force Jews to emigrate to Israel (and only there) that they exhibited sixty some years ago. This is because the Zionist concern for Jews extends only to those who agree to go to Palestine. And once there, what Zionism has to offer is perpetual military service, the better to defend the land and property that the Zionist entity stole from another people.

          *see “Zionist Collaberation With Nazis”, Lenni Brenner, ed., Barricade Books, available online (google zionist-nazi collaberation, first item)

    • andrew r says:

      With Palestine the injustice is not historical; it’s still ongoing.

    • Donald says:

      Okay, I’ll bite. The injustices of Arab governments towards Jews should be rectified and so should those in Eastern Europe. In fact, if the Arab governments are to become liberal democracies it seems to me that how they treat their former Jewish residents will be one test of how much they respect human rights. (I can say this without getting into the question of how many Arab Jews were expelled and how many left voluntarily–the principle holds no matter what the numbers).

      But the same is true for Israel. There is nothing in law or morality that says a crime against group A committed by group B can be balanced against a crime by group C against group D. You don’t seem to understand this, or rather, you probably are deliberately misunderstanding it. If Israel really wants to accept and be accepted by its Arab neighbors, then by all means Israel should bring up the issue of Jews who were expelled by the Arab countries while also acknowledging its guilt with respect to the Palestinians.

      • Shingo says:

        Of course, the argument about Jews being kicked out of Arab countries is largely a myth anyway. The Mizrahi/Sephardim migrated to Israel with the intend of living in a Jewish state. They did so over a period of decades, and the Mizrahi/Sephardim explicitly reject the suggestion that they are refugees.

        This canard has been debunked.

        “Any reasonable person, Zionist or non-Zionist, must acknowledge that the analogy drawn between Palestinians and Mizrahi Jews is unfounded. Palestinian refugees did not want to leave Palestine. Many Palestinian communities were destroyed in 1948, and some 700,000 Palestinians were expelled, or fled, from the borders of historic Palestine. Those who left did not do so of their own volition.”
        link to haaretz.com

      • eee says:

        Donald,

        I am not looking for balance. I am trying to show you how outrageous and ridiculous the right of return demand is. But if you insist on the right of return, I will insist on full compensation from the Arab countries and Poland and I insist on those before any compensation is provided to the Palestinians.

        • >> I am trying to show you how outrageous and ridiculous the right of return demand is.

          Sorta kinda like how folks from Russia and Brooklyn and Miami can claim a piece of Israel because some mythical ancestors of theirs got kicked out of there 2000 years ago. Ridiculous indeed.

          Just keep digging that hole, wuddja? -N49.

        • Shingo says:

          Why is it outrageous?

          Would you have believed it as outrageous and ridiculous to suggest that the Palestinians should be driven out of Palestine so that the Jewish population could be transformed from a minority into a majority?

          Was it outrageous and ridiculous to demand that Israel allow the refugees to return (which Israel agreed to do) as part of the condition of the entry of Israel into the UN membership?

        • eee says:

          Jews from all over the world can become Israeli citizens because of the right given to them by the Israeli state not because of anything that happened 2000 years ago.

        • pjdude says:

          also why should poland pay for what germany and russia did in their lands. but than again why should we expect anything different. people who didn’t commit crimes paying for them is a wellestrablished part of zionist culture and thought

        • pjdude says:

          thank you for damning Israel for us. You proved its not about return to their homeland because a converted jew can go there to live in a palestinian home. thank you for admiting it was about the return to any sort of ancestoral home but instead the naked conquest so they could have a state for a faith

        • Sumud says:

          I am not looking for balance. I am trying to show you how outrageous and ridiculous the right of return demand is.

          It’s not outrageous at all. Maybe you hadn’t heard but the jewish community in Germany is growing again and HUGE reparations have been paid. Refugees return regularly.

        • pjdude says:

          And you fail naturally because some demanding there legal right is outageous. denying said right and acting like a petulant child over it like Israel and its supporters are is however

      • Sumud says:

        (I can say this without getting into the question of how many Arab Jews were expelled and how many left voluntarily–the principle holds no matter what the numbers)

        This is perfectly reasonable David and a number of times here before people have agreed that jews who were actually expelled from arab countries should receive compensation. It would be inappropriate to tie the issue directly to any settlement of Israel/Palestine – it’s an issue that would have to be dealt with on a country-by-country basis..

  18. Koshiro says:

    “The situation in Israel/Palestine is the responsibility of the whole world.”
    How is it the responsibility of, to just take a random example, China? Come one, set your hasbara-schooled mind at work, I’m sure you can cook up some ridiculous rationalization for that.

    “Let me reiterate again”
    To repeat nonsense does not make it true. The logical consequences of your utterings have been demonstrated to you, and you have – of course – not been able to refute them.
    Speaking of China, I think the Chinese should just invade Israel and plunder it for its riches. This is only just, since the Chinese have been invaded by Japan in WW2 and not been properly compensated so far. From that point on, it will be strictly a matter between the tattered remnants of Israeli society who managed to survive the Chinese onslaught to settle matters with the Japanese government.
    Right?

  19. bob says:

    Tu Quoque is a very common fallacy in which one attempts to defend oneself or another from criticism by turning the critique back against the accuser. This is a classic Red Herring since whether the accuser is guilty of the same, or a similar, wrong is irrelevant to the truth of the original charge. However, as a diversionary tactic, Tu Quoque can be very effective, since the accuser is put on the defensive, and frequently feels compelled to defend against the accusation.

  20. bob says:

    Smallpox and other diseases wiped out 90-95 percent of the continent in a virgin field epidemic.

    The first use of small pox as a biological weapon occurred possibly as far back as Amherst in the French and Indian wars, hundreds of years after the continents experienced a massive virgin field epidemic.

  21. VR says:

    Perhaps and example, far enough away so we can think about it –

    WORLDWIDE INDIGENOUS MESSAGE

    Here you find all of the elements we are discussing, which shows we are essentially dealing with the same issue, whether divided by time or territory.

    • Citizen says:

      Do you, VR, actually think that all the indigenous peoples from different tribes lived happily together before the imperialist white man came to their shores?

      • VR says:

        Never said that Citizen, but you can keep implying my nativity if it makes you feel better. Actually tribes never committed genocide on one another, they assimilated one into another. There was disagreements but never perpetual war, in fact, I consider their tribal systems to be far advanced to our system in the area of mutual humanity. Actually I consider you to be quite naive Citizen, and that because you do not recognize that the genocide of the indigenous was based as much on the aspirations of their (the colonials) hierarchical and violent system and the need to disappear a system based on an egalitarian foundation. However, you can keep hugging “the imperialist white man” if it makes you feel better.

        • bob says:

          There were large scale tribal exterminations and cannabalism.

          The field opened up on looking at native American Warfare in the 1990′s and continues on today. The myth of the peaceful savage, ala Zinn, is out of date and doesnt hold water anymore.

        • Citizen says:

          How did I imply your nativity? I did not suspect you were not a white person. And I don’t disagree with you that white imperialism did aid and abet the red man’s demise. I also agree that the white government did not honor its treaties with the red man. I merely think that most native Americans died when they caught what was to them a slew of new diseases from very early trading and spead it amongst themselves. And I disagree with you that later these diseases were usually “administered” by whites to the left over natives. I also disagree with your conviction that whites taught the natives scalping. And so on.

        • bob says:

          I think nearly everyone can agree on the detestable ways on how various governments treated the Native Americans.

          Israel’s treatment on the Palestinians? Theres quite an apologists debate running. Thats one difference.

          The other is on how people have tried hard to apologize for the Israelis, yet when it comes to the Native Americans, Euro-Americans are willing to accept grossly inflated charges like the unintentional mass virgin field die-off from disease or accept collective punishments by shouldering the ill treatment from various European colonial actions centuries before the US was even created. Blood libels and collective guilt are quite differently measured, and it says a lot on the subject.

        • VR says:

          A couple of clarifications, for Citizen and bob – I am what you would call a “white person,” I am not native but of European descent. When I say “white man” I speak typically. The comment regarding naivety cuts both ways, not merely the assumption of mine, but we now have over 500 years of what I am talking about and it shows no signs of stopping – it is not merely isolated to certain eras. What has advanced has moved from kingdoms of yore, to feudalism and right into capitalism. All of your appeal to virgin field epidemics, supposed massive tribal violence and inference of cannibalism does not dismiss what has and is now systemically in progress, globally.

          It takes a lot of either gross ignorance of systemic mechanization or unbridled malice to imply or champion both of your positions. This is one of the reasons I referred you (above) to Galeano’s volume, perhaps I should have given the whole title – Open Veins Of Latin America, five centuries of the pillage of a continent,” and this is just one continent, it does not speak globally – but it could, because it is a repetition of what has systemically occurred. So, either get an education beyond your contained and limited knowledge base, or stop propagating the lies and delusions about what has transpired in the world.

          REALITY

          To the point of Mr. Abunimah’s post, I agree with his assessment in regard to the Palestinians, and while the particulars are different what the Palestinians are experiencing is more of the same of this global junta. What is experienced everywhere is unique, but it is not essentially different or sui generis, but it does present many unique opportunities to the region.

        • Potsherd2 says:

          VR’s usual offensive manner does nothing to disprove the well-established facts about the near-obliteration of the Native American population by disease. A typical example of blind ideology attempting to obliterate any aspects of reality that don’t conform to his mindview.

        • VR says:

          Well Potsherd2, the point never was did disease kill many indigenous or not, the question was how did it happen. But that is beside the point, because you just want to continuously remind me about how abrasive I am in your eyes (the last refuge for arguments).

          I am sure while all of the indigenous were dying that the colonials really tried to save them, that they reached out to them with a helping hand (because we know how nice those colonial settlers were, just like the Israeli ones) – no, they just tried to exterminate them further through other means. The argument was also about a questionable practice of cannibalism, which is still the center of disagreement in the scientific community.

          I am amazed that no one sees the connection between the “death cult” Arabs (Palestinians) and the savage Indians, but don’t think twice about that. However, i will make a prediction for you, if you look at my site you will find tons of them with no error made before the fact of whatever subject about this fetid capitalistic system. So here is another one, I hope I am wrong but I doubt it – until you learn the connection systemically between what occurs here are what is happening to the Palestinians nothing of consequence will happen to save them. If you do not recognize the connection that I have made repeatedly, there is no hope. However, if you do decide to wake up and see what is transpiring, something substantive can happen.

  22. EEE,
    I think Israel should pay for lands and property that it took either by force, or by annexation after the right of return was prohibited in 1949/50/51.

    And, I think that all that were born in Israel should have the right to return, and that in cases where there are identifiable and egregious cases of forced removal, that children of former refugees should be allowed to return to Israel.

    And, I think that all Palestinians should have the right to travel to Israel and reside there as working non-citizens.

    And, I agree with you entirely that as former refugees, the vast majority of Israelis are definitively not guilty of land theft, and that the founding of Israel is something to be proud of, a difficult birth (painful for all affected).

    There is no way to undo the holocaust as the lives are just lost, the greatest rock thrown into the ocean still making waves.

    There is also no way to undo the post-WW2 struggle of all European refugees to survive and repatriate. And there is no way undo the post-WW2 harrassment of Jewish refugees that were not allowed to return peaceably to their former homes (and hated the forced intimacy with their collaborating murderous hosts), nor allowed to migrate to new welcoming homes, except in Palestine.

    There is no basis of guilt for wanting to self-associate, for wanting to be among one’s own rather than remaining a perpetual stranger, for wanting to actually have a home.

    The significance of the native american argument is two things:

    1. The hypocrisy of the declarations that Israeli Jewish settlers are unjust as stated by anglo Americans (white Americans don’t walk in perpetual self-attacking guilt.)
    2. That there is some actual implied statute of limitations for defining when the past becomes a changed present, meaning that at some point it is accepted that settlers have title to the land rather than former tribal (even when acquired as beneficiary of force, and by ethnic exclusion)

    I like that Ali Abunimeh is NOT asking that all the Jews that now reside in former Jaffa for example, leave.

    • No one who advocates the One State Solution that Abunimah has been advocating has ever suggested that any Jews currently in Israel leave their property.

      This solution accepts the fact that the Israelis who stole, murdered, plundered, and engaged in ethnic cleansing are to remain as they are with no changes to their current status.

      The only difference would be that they would have to afford all people living under Israeli jurisdiction equal rights and allow for the right of return to any Palestinian who wishes to return to his/her homeland.

      Abunimah’s solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is the most pragmatic solution that we have. The 2 state solution is long dead and was never viable to begin with for a multitude of reasons. The one state solution as proposed by Abunimah basically allows Israelis who benefited from the ethnic cleansing of Palestine to literally keep everything they stole. The only thing they have to give up is their first class citizenship status and live as equals with the indigenous people of Palestine.

      In a sense Abunimah’s solution (which is anathema to most Zionists) is quite generous in that hes basically letting Israel off the hook.

      • pjdude says:

        I have. I see don’t see as justice. it is rewarding them for the most heinious crimes we have which is repugnent. if a palestinians wishes to return to his land and it has been settles by Israeli sorry but those Israeli need to be booted.

        • pjdude says:

          I would have agreed with you had the Israelis shown any humanity, any decency, any compassion, any inclination to conform to the law and the palestinians rights but they haven’t so they should get nothing except what the returning refugees are willing to let them keep. I’m sorry but essentially letting Israel go woops are bad isn’t good enough. if they aren’t willing to accept more than more needs to be forced upon them. there unwillingness to follow the law and apply justice is not an excuse for justice to remain undone. when people act completely devoid humanity and solely with cruelty treating them as victims and essentially leaving most of the “punishment” on their victims is a crime in and of itself. one that is reprehensible and repugnent

    • pjdude says:

      once again we have some arrogantly think the choice is theirs to make. your wrong it is not your choice. the choice to take compensation and resettle or return is sole vested in the refugees.

    • Shingo says:

      “I like that Ali Abunimeh is NOT asking that all the Jews that now reside in former Jaffa for example, leave.”

      Nor is anyone else asking for that.

    • Citizen says:

      Were, e.g., the Pilgrims refugees? How about the Irish who settled Australia?

  23. Hu Bris says:

    “the Pilgrims refugees?”

    Not really. Colonisers or Migrants might be the best description-

    “How about the Irish who settled Australia?”

    Definitely NOT.

    Most of them were simply white slaves.

    Much like the first wave of Irish ‘immigration’ into what later became the US, and all over the Caribbean and South America, was not actually ‘immigration’ at all, but was in most cases actually slavery. In some cases a slightly different form of slavery, economic this time, called ‘Indentured Servitude’ was the method used to enslave them.

    It is said that the Irish were treated worse than the Black slaves because the Black slaves actually cost money and had re-sale value while the Irish one could get for free.

    Between the years 1652 – 1659, English Troops murdered over 500,000 Irish men, women and children. Another 100,000 (possibly as high as 250,000) Irish people, mainly children, were sold into slavery to places like Barbados and the Caribbean and the North American colonies

    By 1637, on the Island of Montserrat in the Caribbean, the Irish heavily outnumbered the English colonists, and 69 percent of Montserrat’s white inhabitants were Irish.

    In 1641, Ireland’s population was 1,466,000, but by 1652, in just over a decade it had dwindled to just 616,000.

    From 1651 to 1660, between 80,000 to 130,000 Irish were transported by English slavers. It is worth noting, that these are only the figures that were recorded, while it is known that the English did not see it as necessary to record the transport of all Irish slaves. When viewed with the fact that very often Irish slaves were classified as being English, it becomes clear that the actual figure is much higher.

    In 1656, English military leader Oliver cromwell’s Council of State voted that 1,000 Irish girls and 1,000 Irish young men be sent to Jamaica. cromwell’s measures against Irish Catholics are widely considered to have been bordering on genocidal.

    In June of 1657, the monarchy passed a law that attempted to cleanse the land of the Irish people stating:

    “Those who fail to transplant themselves into Connaught or Clare within six Months… Shall be attained of high treason… Are to be sent into America or some other parts beyond the seas…” Those who return are to “suffer the pains of death as felons by virtue of this act, without benefit of Clergy”

    Or as it has been more poetically put… ‘To hell or to Connaught’. The province of Connaught was not desired by the English due to the poor quality of the land. Many lives were destroyed in this great upheaval.

  24. So you guys do acknowledge that Pjude has directly insisted that Israelis leave? Others have directly as well, and many others have inferred that in posts.

    I personally think that without mutual consent, the single-state solution is more remote than the two-state, and in the environment of even one community determining to retain national status (rather than federal), a two-state approach optimizes democracy far more than a single state.

    MANY sentiments expressed by dissenters here indicate that they strongly object to the commercialization and/or Judaification of formerly traditional Palestinian communities. In a single state, there really is no way to legally preserve the ethnic or traditional character of individual communities, Palestinian or Jewish.

    Both are predicated on acceptance of the other to be successful.

    I hope that would be possible but I don’t know.

    One point that I observed in watching Norman Finkelstein live, is that his conclusions and proposals were very similar to his debating opponent (two-state solution at green line, full civil rights for all minorities, application of rule of law in title and residence rights re: right of return), but based on different reasoning.

    Rather than appreciate and suggest cooperation towards that common goal, he insulted and ridiculed his “opponent”.

    He could have even just noted, “we understand the important features of the situation differently”, rather than ridicule.

    • Mooser says:

      “So you guys do acknowledge that Pjude has directly insisted that Israelis leave?

      So will you be putting them up at your house, now that pjdude has forced them to go?

  25. eljay says:

    >> So you guys do acknowledge that Pjude has directly insisted that Israelis leave?

    I disagree with pjdude‘s assertion that “if a palestinians wishes to return to his land and it has been settles by Israeli sorry but those Israeli need to be booted.” I would prefer that “if a Palestinian wishes to return to his land and it has been settled by an Israeli, the Palestinian is entitled to fair compensation for his loss and the right to re-settle in an available area of his choice.”

    >> MANY sentiments expressed by dissenters here indicate that they strongly object to the commercialization and/or Judaification of formerly traditional Palestinian communities. In a single state, there really is no way to legally preserve the ethnic or traditional character of individual communities, Palestinian or Jewish.

    You’ve raised this point before and I believe it has been addressed before. If I recall correctly, no one here has objected to naturally-occurring “Judaification” or “Palestinification” of any area anywhere. Objections that have been raised have been directed at the forced “Judaification” of “Mandate Palestine” through the realization of Zionism, that wonderful “mix of defense and offense” dedicated – by its very nature – to establishing and expanding a religion-supremacist, non-egalitarian, non-democratic, “Promised Land” state.

    • occupyresist says:

      eljay,

      summed up my view perfectly.

      • pjdude says:

        My whole thing is that to let the Israeli keep the property when the person it was stolen from clearly wants it back is rewarding Israel and the Israelis for 62 years of criminal behavior and encourage copycats of Israeli behavior. though note I for the Israeli government footing the bill for them moving because if Israel told them they could. my view I’ll admit is harsh far harsher than most people are comfortable with but I am by no means cruel. I would expect everything to be set up for the ISraeli family or families or what not to move before the palestinian owner could move back in.

    • tree says:

      In a single state, there really is no way to legally preserve the ethnic or traditional character of individual communities, Palestinian or Jewish.

      I can’t speak for the East coast, but here in LA-LA land, within the city itself, there are numerous geographic communities that have preserved their “ethnic and traditional character”. There are numerous small enclaves, “Little Armenia”, ” Koreatown”, “Little Tokyo”, “Little Saigons”, etc., even a “Little Gaza”. The law does not prevent this.

      What a state built on equality in Israel/Palestine would prevent is banning anyone from living next to you. A Palestinian could not be prevented from living next to a Jew and vice versa. It would be a good thing, because its always easier to hate as a group those whom you never see.

      • In the case of East Jerusalem or Hebron, Jews desire to live in those areas. If houses were sold, actually gone on the market, it is likely that a high percentage of Jews and also likely affluent Palestinians would settle in the neighborhoods, and change them fundamentally (either gentrification or Judaification), and naturally.

        I wish you had honored the distinction that I raised in the Silwan threads where I asserted that those Jews that had purchased homes in Silwan should be permitted to remain, honorably, justly.

        It was largely shot down. It was a different case than in Hebron where the military shut down and cleared a neighborhood.

  26. talknic says:

    Odd isn’t it. The zionutters blabber on about The American Indians and Australian Aboriginals, as if they care. (I really do enjoy hitting seeking them out after live discussions and them up big time [just one more zero to that number.. pls....thx....] for donations to A Start in Life and the Jimmy Little Foundation)

    So lemme see if I got it right….

    If the Americans somehow, magically, revive the American Indians who died in the US’s colonial past and if Australia returns the land to the Aboriginals (which it is actually doing) , then I gather Israel will withdraw to Israel. It will stop usurping the Palestinians, adhere to International Law, the UN Charter and the GC’s, pay reparations and allow Right of Return for the few thousand 62 + year old Palestinians left who actually qualify. (they’re all beyond the age of rampant procreation)

    Not that they were ever a threat. You see it DOESN’T ADD UP!!!

    We’re told by the Declaration for the Establishment of the State of Israel, that the Arabs were welcome to stay. OK. For arguments sake, let’s say they did. Would they or would they not have been a demographic threat?

    We know that only a part of a minority fled the violence. BUT by Aug 1948, were they to return, they’d have been a demographic threat.

    It’s mathematically impossible. Biologically impossible in a few weeks. They weren’t Arabbits.

    So at least one part of the Israeli narrative must be a LIE. When you consider though, that their homes, villages, towns were RAZED. BOTH are blatant lies.

    The lies continue today, propagated for really stupid people who refuse to examine what they’re being fed by the Israeli Government link to wp.me

    • RoHa says:

      “Australia returns the land to the Aboriginals (which it is actually doing)”

      And Nice Mr. Rudd aplogised, too. That’ll do wonders for their life-expectancy.

      But I will point out that, although many of the Aborigines were driven out of their countries (Australia was divided into more than three hundred countries) and the whole continent was unified into a single country, the Aborigines were not expelled from that single country, and they had freedom of movement within that country.

      They still got the shitty end of the stick, of course.