Just a reminder Texas has given the world far more awesome than awful things (and I still refuse blame for the Bushs: That is on Connecticut alone.)

View original post

View original postthe same comments remain as relevant (or not) days, weeks or even a year later.

True enough. I'm really not going to bother with a paragraph for paragraph reply, but I'll try summarizing in a few points.

That is reasonable; I barely expected a reply after delaying mine far more than intended (very sorry.)

Thanks for being gracious about that: I am embarrassed to say that until I went googling to find last years Guardian article again I was unaware of what happened in your neck of the woods, and then torn between feeling obliged to note the relevance and not coming off as if reducing peoples deaths to talking points. It still enrages me when people do that with Breivik, partly because I was just an hours drive away when it happened; two of my sister-in-laws friends were killed. Hope no one you knew was hurt in the latest sociopathic atrocity, and that the Mideast and Africa soon start looking more like the West instead of the reverse (though the tend of all three alarms me.)

On top of all that, there is both the previously cited Prophecy of Balaam and a US notion, popular since the first British colonies, of viewing America as “New Canaan” or a Gentile or Christian Israel. It only works in a religious context, of course, but we have plenty of that. So many observant US Protestants feel a sincere and deep kinship with Jews and Israel (past and present,) often accompanied by the feeling ANY mistreatment of Jews guarantees divine wrath, and good treatment ensure that. Those people will NEVER turn on Israel, WHATEVER it does, because they consider it tantamount to suicide.

I could be wrong, but do not believe much of that applies in Europe; Jews have either been purged or returned to Israel from too many places they were once numerous. I do not believe Europeans any more prone to bigotry than anyone, but those who are have no incentive to exempt Jews.

View original postYour view on history remains seriously distorted and obsessed with seeing parallels or continuations of Biblical "History", though, and hyperbole like "two thousand years of genocide" doesn't help. I had readily admitted in my post that the Palestine nation, as it exists now, was born largely from its shared experience under the Mandate and especially in 1948, which makes several paragraphs of your reply utterly pointless - you are the one obsessed with the Romans and the name they gave to that land, not me. And the Ishmael comment was intended to illustrate the absurdity of your reasoning, it wasn't something to be commented on seriously. Though I guess that was pretty naive of me, in hindsight.

That is the thing though: Removing “historical Palestine” from an equation where it never belonged necessarily removes its NATIONAL claims to any state anywhere. It is hard to make a case for “irredentism” of a “nation” younger than many of its “citizens.” The sole truly solid claim that leaves is filial rather than national, which is fine—but also makes “Palestinians” living in Gaza, the West Bank or anywhere as ISRAELI citizens equally fine. The problem is trying that always ends badly for Israel, because the combined Jewish population of Israel and the Palestinian State is roughly equal to that of Palestinians/Arabs, and virtually none of the latter not currently living in Israel have any desire to do so, so any attempt at integration merely gives thousands of terrorists free access to all their targets.

Nationhood and its legitimacy MATTER, because everyone is entitled to a national as well as filial home. But “Palestines” rarely attested “history” is so dubious it is natural to argue that to the extent Palestinians are Arabs the national home to which they are entitled is one or more of two dozen existing Arab states, and to the exent they are non-Arab they are survivors of ancient Israel, so modern Israel is the national homeland to which they are entitled. In NO case are they entitled to a distinct “Palestinian” state neither Arab nor Israeli. The Ishmael reference is valid, however intended, but Ishmaels descendants got their nations, as did Jacobs, leaving no room for any separatist faction, whether descended from Ishmael, Isaac or both. In terms of “European colonialism,” inventing an ad hoc state atop part of a historical one dating to early Antiquity is at least as interventionist as restoring Israel, whether or not the residents prefer a separate state or integration with the state holding sovereignty over their land.

My view is not eschatologically based (again, whether or not one accepts Gods existence, any such being that MAY exist is fully capable and certain of accomplishing all His prophecies unaided) and only PARTLY biblically based. The bible never mentions Josephus, only vaguely (possibly) references the Diaspora and never mentions Alexandrias periodic ancient riots, let alone Europes periodic Jewish genocides. And those last are extremely relevant because Europe repeatedlyTRIED (with variable sincerity) integrating Jews as full citizens of its various states, never achieved more than brief partial success invariably wiped away by further genocide, finally culminating in the Holocaust. Ironically, Germany (partly due to its fragmented pre-Bismarck nature) and Austria (more ironically around the time of Prussias rise) had the most success, IMHO, but that also ended in the most gruesome failure. Prior to that at least repression was constant after the dawn of the Medieval period, and genocides common. So not technically 2000 years; again, Europe gets a pass for the roughly three centuries Europe was too busy struggling for its OWN survival to threaten anyone elses. But even just counting from 800 AD: Had ANY European nation found a way to enduring integrate Jews, is not certain it would have DONE SO? It is worth noting Zionism contributed; integration is impossible with people who PREFER segregation, merely objecting to its LOCATION. But the same evidence exists there: If Jews did not forget Zion after 2000 years, what chance they will do so any time soon?

To really illustrate the point: All those arguments about OWING people no nation of their own, only integration with the existing one in which they reside, that doing otherwise invites irredentism and discrimination while forcing the impossible question of drawing historically variable borders, that policy should be based on present reality rather than the vanished past: EACH of those points is at least as applicable to the Palestinian State as to Israel, except maybe the variability of historical borders: Because there was never any HISTORICAL Palestine to have any. I am continually struck by this: Apparently right of return EXPIRES after a precise but indefinite amount of time, because Isreals has even though Palestines has not: Does that mean Israel should just wait out the Palestinians until their statute of limitations expires as Israels did? Who cares that your grandfather lived here all his life; his life ended 10 years ago and now I live here, which is the present on which politics should be based.

To be clear, I am still not rejecting the Two-State Solution: It is necessary because Palestinians have demonstrated (with help) inability to peacefully coexist as full Israeli citizens just as Israel demonstrated (with help) the same ability in Europe. The sole viable solution remains the same: A separate sovereign state; a kind of international segregation so most of each nations citizens do not see the others often enough to be tempted to genocide. But to the matter of each nations LEGITIMACY rather than NECESSITY: European colonialists UNDOING destruction of a state, so it can house its ancestral people since they want European citizenship no more than Europe is willing to give it, is at LEAST as valid as European colonialists CREATING an ad hoc state (on top of the one they destroyed) and declaring citizens of another ITS new citizens while the citizens of the original state in the area remain stateLESS.

You have more faith in both, certainly. I would love to see the Palestine-Israel conflict obviated by all Palestinians peacefully integrating into full Israeli citizenship—but it’ll happen about the same time Israelis integrate with Europe to the same degree and on the same basis.

That is what I get for having seen South Park more recently than I read Esther. So that moots the point about Purim, but not the Tanakhs extant statement Sixth Century BC “Palestinians” (i.e. imported Assyrians and assimilated Jews) regularly attacked returning Israels while sending libelous letters to their shared king, or the Gospel claim a First Century “Palestinian” (i.e. Samaritan) told Christ their shared ancestor Jacob built a well but the Jews forbid them to use it. Whether or not one accepts either document as authentic history, neither was WRITTEN any later than the Second Century, so Israeli/Palestinian violence extends back at LEAST 1800 years before 1948. Another reason the Two-State solution is the SOLE VIABLE one, but since both “Palestinians” were referenced as subjects of an occupying foreign power, well, colonialism… that is how every non-Hebrew “Palestinian” GOT THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE.