Palestinians = Indians, Israelis = cowboys?

[Xenocrates]

I was thinking about a historical precedent to the current conflict in the Middle East. I think this one may be good:

At first the native Americans weren't particularly hostile to the settlers and indeed sold some land to them. But greed and numbers drove the settlers to expand their settlements and the natives started to stand up for themselves. The Europeans labelled them as savages to justify killing them. Religion played a part in this. They cherry-picked the best land and gradually marginalised the natives into reservations. They accused the Indians of terrorism (rape etc) while doing worse in return. Indian society broke down and some Indians started to resemble the savages of the settlers' propaganda.

I'm no expert on this history so I'd like to hear your views on whether the above is accurate and whether the comparison withstands critique.

 

[Narz]

it's somewhat more complicated than that but I can see where you're coming from.

 

[Azale]

It sounds like pro-Palestinian propoganda, but if thats what your going for, then yea, I guess it withstands critique...

 

[Pyrite]

If it withstands critique then...is it propaganda?

 

[Azale]

Im saying, if your coming from a Palestinian point of view, then it does withstand critique.

If you support Israel, it doesnt.

I think the comparisons he is trying to draw are not true, and I would call it a bunch of poo, but thats just my pro-Israeli opinion.

 

[Pyrite]

I don't understand how whose side you're on manages to alter reality..

It's either critiquable because it is wrong and idiotic, or above reproach because it is true,

Regardless of whose side you are on.

 

[Azale]

Nah, your wrong.

I am trying to provide more than my pro-Israeli opinion, because I dont think thats what the original poster is looking for anyway. So I decided to critique the comparison from a pro-Palestinian point of view...as best I could.

 

[C~G]

The situations cannot be compared, I'm sorry.

Like Narz said it's more complicated.
In fact the indian-cowboy history is even more complicated when you really look into it.

 

[Pyrite]

Nah, your wrong.

I'm willing to accept that. Where?

I am trying to provide more than my pro-Israeli opinion, because I dont think thats what the original poster is looking for anyway. So I decided to critique the comparison from a pro-Palestinian point of view...as best I could.

Arguments about REALITY don't have to fall into place on predetermined lines. The point of view doesn't change the reality of the situation, and I'm hoping your pro israeli because of what is really going on, (or has gone on).
So, where exactly is this comparison incorrect?

 

[Azale]

Ok, so now you want my pro-Israeli point of view rather than my critique of the original post?

Simply, I think that Israel is under legitimate threats all around it. You have the virtual leader of Hezbollah, Ahmadinajad saying he wants Israel wiped off the map. You have Hamas in control of the Palestinian territories. Hezbollah wont return your soldiers and has constantly been terrorizing your people.

Israel has shown restraint considering what it CAN do, and the only mistake it has made so far was not attacking in force soon enough when it was clear a land incursion of Lebanon was imminent.

I am pro-Israeli because thier fight is one for survival in my opinion. They have every right to be there and exist, while thier neighbors have no right to fund terrorist groups, throw harsh anti-semetic rhetoric, and threaten the very destruction of Israel's people.

Thats about all I am going to say on it though, because it is very unlikely I can sway anybody on this. I was swayed myself, but not on an internet forum (where I have seen that its practically impossible to change anyone's opinion). I learned a little history and I was all the more enlightened.


Now...as far as Palestinian propoganda goes, the original posters comparison of the situation in the ME to the situation between Native Americans-Europeans is about average. Its not very radical, its not insane. I think its all bs, but like I said before...thats not what I think the original poster was looking for. I would think anything making the Palestinians look like victims is BS. When I said you were wrong, Im just saying you misunderstood where I was coming from.

If your still confused, then that just shows how diminished my explanation skills are on the internet compared to in real life...oh well.

 

[ybbor]

I was thinking about a historical precedent to the current conflict in the Middle East. I think this one may be good:

At first the native Americans weren't particularly hostile to the settlers and indeed sold some land to them.

Israel was under attack from day 1.

But greed and numbers drove the settlers to expand their settlements and the natives started to stand up for themselves.

it was the Palestinians who later demanded Israeli land (e.g. the west bank, Gaza strip)

The Europeans labelled them as savages to justify killing them. Religion played a part in this.

sure. but Israel can't even fire a single gun when under rocket fire without the rest of the world screaming "stop! stop! use diplomacy"

They cherry-picked the best land and gradually marginalised the natives into reservations.

the Arabs have all the land they want in the rest of the ME, and it was Palestine that is asking for land from the Israeli State

They accused the Indians of terrorism (rape etc) while doing worse in return.

Last I checked, Israel didn't knowingly target civilians like Hamas and Hezbollah do.

Indian society broke down and some Indians started to resemble the savages of the settlers' propaganda.

I assume you are either joking or that this part is to come.

 

[Xenocrates]

1

Israel was under attack from day 1.

I assume some of the settlements in North America were too.

it was the Palestinians who later demanded Israeli land (e.g. the west bank, Gaza strip)

It was only Israeli land by decree of a foreign organisation; the New World was divided up by the Pope (if memory serves me correctly).

sure. but Israel can't even fire a single gun when under rocket fire without the rest of the world screaming "stop! stop! use diplomacy"

Same with some European liberals and church groups criticising the New Americans.

The Arabs have all the land they want in the rest of the ME, and it was Palestine that is asking for land from the Israeli State

The Indians have all the land they want in the reserved areas.

Last I checked, Israel didn't knowingly target civilians like Hamas and Hezbollah do.

They have no idea where their home-made rockets are going to land, let's be honest. The Israelis have a rather better idea of where their shells and bombs are going to fall. Yet for every one Israeli killed 7 Palestinians have died. You do the maths.

I assume you are either joking or that this part is to come.

I'm not joking, the Israelis wouldn't negotiate with Arafat (the chief - and like Indian chiefs he wasn't sophisticated and wasn''t able to communicate), then they wouldn't negotiate with terrorists and then they wouldn't negotiate with Abbas - calling him irrelevent. It is from the Israelis own lips that Palestinian government has broken down.


I think I may have hit a lucky shot here , now that I think about it more.

 

[Asclepius]

it was the Palestinians who later demanded Israeli land (e.g. the west bank, Gaza strip)

Interesting take on reality... as for the rest, well I can't be arsed. These threads always turn into polarized, yes-no, intolerant, hate fests, but still I would like to know in which parallel universe the West Bank and Gaza have ever legally been Israeli territory...

As for the IDF never knowingly targeting civilians I suggest you watch something other than Fox. It is worth bearing in mind that this case only became high profile news because the target was a Westerner. I wonder how many other 'incidents' there have been involving the invisible Arabs... Here's a BBC video of a Red Cross ambulance which was struck by the IDF in Tyre only yesterday...

 

[luiz]

Both the palestinian-israeli conflict and the indian-settler conflict are/were far more complicated and nuanced than you seem to think.

 

[Xenocrates]

Both the palestinian-israeli conflict and the indian-settler conflict are/were far more complicated and nuanced than you seem to think.

I don't doubt it for a moment; that I have over-simplified. Despite that, don't you see any parallels?

 

[C~G]

Despite that, don't you see any parallels?

IMHO there are as much parallels as when comparing apples and oranges.
Both are fruits and tasty.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Palestinians = Indians, Israelis = cowboys?

No. Its more like:

Palestinians, Israelis, Indians, Cowboys = Humans

 

[greekguy]

It was only Israeli land by decree of a foreign organisation; the New World was divided up by the Pope (if memory serves me correctly).

I don't think England really cared what the Pope had to say about the New World, and all the only Papal decree (AFAIK) was give Spain everything west of Brazil and Portugal Brazil and the African coast. The Pope had nothing to do with North America nor the Native Americans living there.

They have no idea where their home-made rockets are going to land, let's be honest. The Israelis have a rather better idea of where their shells and bombs are going to fall. Yet for every one Israeli killed 7 Palestinians have died. You do the maths.

They most certainly know where those rockets are going, else they would be hitting military targets. Israel always aims at military targets, but sometimes errors occur and innocents die. Israel always apologizes when that happens. I don't see the terrorists doing that.

 

[Sidhe]

Israel was under attack from day 1.

Not quite the Israelis in the early days beofre an Israeli state were using terorrism to try and force the English to leave Palestine, Bombs in hotels, train stations, cafes, we were annoyingly impartial it seems.

it was the Palestinians who later demanded Israeli land (e.g. the west bank, Gaza strip)

You don't read alot of links or alot of these threads do you? All the land Israel owns was taken form the Palestinians in the UN partition plan, Isreal a 33% population took A wide swathe of Palestine land from the indegoinous 66% population. Then when Palestine tried to take it back: in a pre-emptive strike the Israelis took even more of the Palestinian land agreed under the partitian plan and still has not given some of it back.

There are plenty of historical accounts of the area, you might want to give them a glance.

 

[greekguy]

Not quite the Israelis in the early days beofre an Israeli state were using terorrism to try and force the English to leave Palestine, Bombs in hotels, train stations, cafes, we were annoyingly impartial it seems.

not every Israeli was a terrorist, and a greater percentage of Pals are terrorists today then percentage of Israelis who were terrorists 60 years ago (this is like the 3rd time i've said this same statement in the past few weeks ).

You don't read alot of links or alot of these threads do you? All the land Israel owns was taken form the Palestinians in the UN partition plan, Isreal a 33% population took A wide swathe of Palestine land from the indegoinous 66% population. Then when Palestine tried to take it back: in a pre-emptive strike the Israelis took even more of the Palestinian land agreed under the partitian plan and still has not given some of it back.

There are plenty of historical accounts of the area, you might want to give them a glance.

what land does Palestine deserve back?