Hacker News Reader

Comment by skrebbel | Hacker News Reader

Good point. In fact, I may very well not know the most basic things about this country. But then how do you explain the colonization programme? The only explanation I've been able to figure out is some zionist idea of a right to a patch of land; some race-based sense of superiority. Why else bulldozer villages far across the border that was last determined in a treaty? These are horrible crimes, committed willingly by a democratically elected government. I genuinely don't get it.

But I do admit here that I've turned this not-understanding into choosing that it must be plain evil. Maybe it's something different. I'll not delete my original post to keep the thread understandable.

View on HN

Wow. No. You've got it completely wrong.

Zionism is the idea that Jews need a Jewish nation to take Jewish refugees fleeing persecution. History has basically proved that to be true.

What it's not:

1. The idea that Jews are in any way superior. All races have equal rights under Israeli law (although secular Jews have some obligations that other groups don't, i.e. mandatory military service) and Israel has a significant Arab population.

2. Religion-based. Early Zionists were all secular socialists. Religious Jews got on board later when they started to see Israel as a sign from God but the traditional position (and the reason why many Ultra-Orthodox Jews still don't support Israel) is that Jews weren't allowed a nation until the Messiah comes.

Israel isn't perfect (obviously) but your comments are completely disproportionate. You need to tone down the hate.

>>Zionism is the idea that Jews need a Jewish nation to take Jewish refugees fleeing persecution.

Makes perfect sense. If you settle a persecuted set of people on a totally unoccupied land, which would be totally harmless. What I don't understand is the need to persecute one already existing set of people to accommodate another set of people who just got persecuted.

If a persecuted tribe in Africa decides to settle down in Antarctica people wouldn't have a problem. But will it be OK, if they invade California drive out the existing set of people there and settle down.

>>If a persecuted tribe in Africa decides to settle down in Antarctica people wouldn't have a problem. But will it be OK, if they invade California drive out the existing set of people there and settle down.

If you think that's analogous to what happened in Palestine you need a history lesson.

From the above comment(from 'philwech') Indians were living in California originally.

Will it be ok, If they drive out existing residents of California?

California has been "invaded" and the existing set of people "driven out" what, two times going on three now? (The Spanish driving out the Indians, Americans driving out the Mexicans, and now Hispanics immigrating at record rates driving out white Americans).

This narrative about driving people out is an oversimplification at best, though, just as much for Israel as for California.

>> and now Hispanics immigrating at record rates driving out white Americans

I don't see Hispanics flying around in F-16's bombing white American colonies. If they do, I will be the first to speak out. What you seem to be talking about is natural change in demographics, where a group of people grow in population and the other group doesn't grow much. And then there is natural movement(like immigration in case of Hispanics).

Also if its oversimplification, please explain us the right thing.

That's not a fair or intellectually honest response. Go win internet points jousting with other fanatics, preferably on Reddit.

Sorry, You said my statements were an oversimplification. I asked you to explain me how.

As a result you call my response intellectually dishonest, and ask me to go over to Reddit and talk to other fanatics.

Sorry, but no more replies from me. Also If have I hurt you by any means on this thread, accept my sincere apologies.

No, you made an intentionally irrelevant quip about Hispanics in F-16's, thus demonstrating that you are doing everything in your power to deliberately miss the point. Of course there's no point responding to you. Reddit is exactly the place for that kind of nonsense.

"and now Hispanics immigrating at record rates driving out white Americans)."

How on earth is the former causally linked to the latter?

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But people can (and do) build that kind of narrative all the time, which was my real point. The reality is always more complicated.

I see. I still don't think white flight is a valid comparison to military operations and bulldozing settlements.

It's not even a valid comparison to the Mexican-American war, that's the point. You can oversimplify vastly different issues down to the same narrative if you want to, which is why these simple narratives tell us nothing.

>>What I don't understand is the need to persecute one already existing set of people to accommodate another set of people who just got persecuted.

But they weren't persecuted - they were paid off.

In 1917, at the end of WW1, Britain was given the mandate of administering Palestine - at the time a chunk of the recently-defeated-and-defunct Ottoman Empire. Part of this mandate was the Balfour Declaration, which basically said that Britain would work to build 'a national home for the Jewish people' in Palestine ("it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine").

They worked with the "Jewish Agency for Palestine" (these days the Jewish Agency for Israel), who had been buying the land in the area from the previous owners - mostly Arab clans and local sheiks and so on. Nothing was seized, nobody was driven out or persecuted.

How does that relate to governance? Depending on the laws of the nation, property ownership and residence may not imply voting rights (or any sort of say in governance, voting or otherwise). I truly have no idea of the laws regarding this in that part of the world, but a simple argument of land purchase without addressing those issues doesn't really sway me too far one way or the other.

One of the things it took me a while to get my head around was that there kinda was no overarching nation at the time in question - at least not in the way we think of it today. The Ottoman Empire was defunct; nominally there were laws of the nation, but it was in no position to enforce them, and many of them hadn't been popular anyway (as they were secularizing).

In practice the people in the area operated as 'millets' - micronations unified by religious belief, governing themselves according to religious law. When the British took over administration of the region in 1917, they didn't try to change this.

So for the most part, the landowners that the Jewish Agency was buying from were the governance. The trade wasn't like one citizen of a nation selling to another citizen of the nation; it was like one country selling land to another country (and so moving its borders).

It is not true that all races have equal rights under Israeli law. Try immigrating to Israel if you are not Jewish.

The message is clear and simple: Don't mess with us, we will fk you over. Whether it is nice or not is a different matter.

Well yeah, that's true. Jews have a right to immigrate to Israel that other peoples don't.

All Israeli citizens have equal rights. You can gain citizenship if you have a Jewish background, just like someone with an Irish background can gain an Irish citizenship.

The statement was that all races have equal rights under Israeli law not that all citizens have equal rights. Furthermore, Ireland has a naturalization process whereas the Israeli one is limited to Jews and spouses of existing citizens. Residents of the West Bank and Gaza are NOT classified as citizens of Israel. So either the West Bank and Gaza are part of Israel or they are not. If they are not, then the residents there are under occupation. If they are, then why are they not granted citizenship.

I do not think that what Israel is doing is better or worse than what other countries have done or are currently doing and should not be treated any better or worse because of it. But it would be disingenuous to spin it as anything but what it is. To me, the strategy is to occupy and take over territory over time. It works. See the history of the United States versus native people, Australians versus aborigines, Chinese versus Tibetans. Might makes right. For Americans, we still benefit greatly from what happened in the past. Its not to say that the Palestinians are blameless, just that Israel has the 'bigger gun' in this fight.

Say what you will about history, but how people are treated right now is telling.

Yea right. Are you saying that Zionists locating Israel in Palestine has nothing to do with their 3,000 year old holy book?

It's fairly uncontroversial historical fact that the Jews are originally from Palestine.

Why don't you do research on the early Zionists, if you're actually curious about the subject and not just trying to score points in an internet debate? Probably most of the early Zionists were very secularist.

Unfortunately I do not trust much of what I read about Israel, there is just too much propaganda from all sides. Everything is twisted for some cause. The only thing I know for certain is that the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948 was probably a really bad idea since it has led to so many wars.

If you don't want to inform yourself, please spare us your uninformed speculation.

And you can spare us your propaganda.

What propaganda? You're contributing literally nothing to this discussion except to smear Israel with vague counterfactual innuendos, and accusing me of propaganda? I'm trying to be as fair and honest as I can be. What are you trying to do?

> But then how do you explain the colonization programme?

I don't especially like the settlements, actually, and neither do a lot of Palestinians. I'd be happier if the lot of them were either removed or simply abandoned to the jurisdiction of Palestinian authorities.

Sharon actually closed a lot of them awhile ago, but just like any democracy, it's hard to get away with alienating any constituency. You'll notice that even though Sharon pulled all the settlements out of the Gaza Strip, it didn't seem to improve matters there any. Also, the settlements provide a lot of jobs and economic benefits to Palestinians. It's a complicated issue, much more complicated than this bullshit of yours about "the Israelis are Nazis" (which itself is pretty fucking racist, BTW).

As for the bulldozers, do you have any good sources on that? As far as I can readily find, most demolitions are either carried out because structures were constructed (often in Israel itself) without proper building permits (though this is allegedly enforced unfairly), or because there are terrorists actively holed up inside them. Interestingly, Israel also demolishes a lot of the settlements.

This is probably a good time to point out one of my simple ground rules about this issue: I think any criticism of any party, or any policy, is reasonable, as long as one accepts that both Israel and Palestine have a right to exist as independent states.

Phil, thanks for clearing this up. I stand corrected. (hey, now, the IDF tweet didn't change my mind about the situation, but blvr and you did! dialog rocks - and thanks for your patience)

As a sidenote, I agree that the Nazi reference was over the top and I regret using it. I do not agree, however, that it was "fucking racist", since I called a government something, not a race or a nation's people.

I don't think Israel accepts that Palestine has a right to exist as an independent state. Does that make them unreasonable?

That's a generalization. By my understanding, Labor and Kadima accept that Palestine should exist as an independent state, and Likud do not. This would make Likud unreasonable, but Likud does not represent all Israelis, nor is it fair to equate support for Israel's defense and continued existence with support for Likud's policies in particular.

There are also Palestinian factions which are unreasonable, including Hamas. I think it's doubly unfortunate that both Hamas and Likud have managed to win various elections.

Wait, i write a nasty, unfriendly post and get many upvotes. Then I admit that the nasty unfriendly post might've been based on a lack of understanding and ask for someone to explain better, and I get downvoted? What's going on, HN?

EDIT: I'm editing this comment because HN won't allow me to respond to blvr's post. blvr, thanks for elaborating. I don't mean to sound hateful, and I'm willing to accept that I have it all wrong. But still, can you explain the colonization thing? Why do they do it? Note, this is not criticism: I'd really like to understand it better. It's been pointed out by many in this thread by now that I've been assuming things.

Click the permalink to reply.

I don't know what you mean by 'the colonisation thing'. What are you talking about specifically?

(nice trick!)

Aie, damn. Lost in translation. I meant the settlements. But people have been elaborating about those in other comments by now. And I've come to stand corrected that even if the settlements are horrible, they're less horrible than suicide bombings and the likes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com