SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : War -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: chalu2 who wrote (2714)8/13/2001 1:01:21 AM
From: Nadine Carroll  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 23908
 
My main point, I think, was that many Americans smugly think that the US has "clean hands" in its historical past, and therefore can moralize over who is wrong or right in the mideast conflict.

Gotcha.

Can you imagine what the reaction would be if Arapaho suicide bombers blew up McDonald's restaurants in Cheyenne and Laramie?

I do believe that "disproportionate" would be too mild a word.

I do oppose the settlements in the west bank area as colonizing, and severely weakening Israel's moral arguments.


As a practical political matter, I agree with you. But you should understand that religious ideology drives a large section of the Israeli population, and if historical claims to the land mean anything, then they apply to Judea and Samaria (aka the West Bank). For example, Jews lived in Hebron from 4000 BCE, the time of the Patriarch Abraham (who is buried there) until 1929, when all Jewish residents of Hebron were massacred. Hebron is the home turf of the House of David. There is a very deep Jewish attachment to Hebron.

All this is not to say that I support the settler movement, but I understand it, and I'm a little sensitive to calling it "colonizing", as if Israel inside the Green Line was clearly one country, and the West Bank were another country.

The Palestinian Authority has been saying this for years of course, and saying that everything would be okay if only Israel withdrew to the Green Line. But it wasn't okay before 1967, and there's little reason to believe it would be different now. Why give the Arabs a do-over on their aggresive war? If the West Bank was all they wanted, why did Arafat turn down Barak's offer for 95% of it without even making a counteroffer, and then start shooting?

Incidentally, since historical claims do matter in the Mideast, the Palestinian Authority has been claiming for several years that the Jews have no historical connection to the land of Israel whatsoever. There was never a Jewish Temple on Temple Mount, the events in the Bible took place in Yemen, etc, etc. They say this seriously and with a straight face, and other Arab governments now echo the claim. I'm not sure if you're aware of this because they have been given a free pass on this absurd propaganda by the western media. memri.org is a good site for seeing quotes from Arab media if you're interested.

Israel/Palestine, from the river to the sea, is all one country with two incompatible peoples currently occupying it. The question for the Jews is, how to divvy it up? Unfortunately the current question for the Arabs seems to be, how do we succeed this time in driving the Jews into the sea? Israel's security needs are not imaginary, and the Green Line is an indefensible border.



To: chalu2 who wrote (2714)8/14/2001 11:06:29 PM
From: Nadine Carroll  Respond to of 23908
 
chalu2,

I thought you might enjoy this article:

America’s Occupied Territories
Michael Freund
12 August 2001

Ever since Israel won Judea, Samaria and Gaza in the 1967 Six-Day War, the United States has insisted on classifying these territories as “occupied”. Ignoring Israel’s Biblical, historical and legal rights to the areas and overlooking the fact that they were taken in an act of self-defense by a country threatened with extinction by its neighbors, American presidents have stubbornly held to the view that Israel should “return” Judea, Samaria and Gaza and cease settling its citizens there.

In adopting such a position, America has essentially rejected the principles of acquiring territory through the use of force and settling citizens in “foreign” lands. There is, however, something quite ironic about this stance, because it was exactly these two principles that lay behind the successful expansion of the United States itself. Indeed, were it not for the westward flow of settlers across the North American continent in the 19th century and America’s subsequent acquisition of territory by force, the world’s only superpower might otherwise have amounted to little more than a small, backwater nation.

One of the more conspicuous examples in American history is that of Florida, a state made famous last year for its pivotal role in President George W. Bush’s election. After Spain regained control of Florida from the British in 1783, a series of boundary disputes erupted between Spain and the United States about delineating the northern border of the Florida territory. Even as the two sides bickered, American settlers poured into Florida, tilting the demographic balance.

In 1810, a revolt against Spanish rule in West Florida prompted President James Madison to dispatch American troops, who occupied the area, which then became part of the state of Louisiana in 1812 and the Mississippi Territory. The American settlers, of course, welcomed the move.

Local Indians, fearing for their future, stepped up attacks on white settlers in East Florida, and did not hesitate to cross the contested border and attack American communities. After Indians ambushed a ship carrying U.S. troops and their families and brutally massacred most of them on November 30, 1817, President James Monroe, Madison’s successor, sent in General Andrew Jackson. The General subdued the Indians, overwhelmed the Spanish garrisons and returned home a national hero.

Faced with the inevitable loss of its territory, Spain agreed to sign the Adams-Onis Treaty of February 22, 1819, in which it sold Florida to the United States for five million dollars. But the sale essentially formalized what had actually been achieved through force of arms. In modern parlance, then, Florida might very well be considered American-occupied territory.

American history is rife with other such examples. As a former Governor of Texas, President Bush is no doubt aware the state was previously Mexican territory. Though Mexico invited Americans to settle the area in the 1820’s, by 1830 the settlers outnumbered Mexicans in Texas by three to one, leading Mexico to clamp down for fear of losing control of the territory. In 1835, American settlers rebelled and launched the Texas Revolution, routing the Mexican army and declaring independence in 1836.

The breakaway state of Texas then sought American annexation, greatly angering the Mexican government. After the U.S. Congress passed a resolution offering it entry to the Union, Texas accepted American control in July 1845, which promptly led to the outbreak of the Mexican-American War. When the war ended in 1848, a defeated Mexico handed over vast swaths of territory to the United States, which later became California, Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico and Utah. And, of course, Texas.

Throughout the 19th century, the dispatch of American settlers beyond the borders of the United States played a central role in expanding the country’s boundaries. States such as Oregon and Wyoming (U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney’s home state), were both settled by large numbers of Americans, usually against the wishes of local Indian tribes and European rulers. The growing presence of the American settlers inevitably changed the status quo, and ultimately led such states out of European and Indian hands and into American arms.

As historians have noted, much of this expansionism was propelled by a popular belief in “Manifest Destiny”, the sense that America had a Divine right to occupy the North American continent from the Atlantic to the Pacific. Unlike Israel, however, America had no historic or Biblical ties to the land that might have justified its policy. But that did not stop America from pressing forward and building a great nation.

So before the United States decides to preach to Israel about the wisdom of building Jewish settlements or holding onto Judea, Samaria and Gaza, it might do well to take a look back at its own past. For if one were to take the American government’s stance vis-à-vis Israel’s territories and retroactively apply it to America’s own acquisition of land throughout history, there would be plenty to keep the United Nations Security Council busy for quite some time.

Once America decides to return Florida to Spain or California to Mexico, it can then feel free to offer advice to Israel. After all, why should America view its own “occupied” territories any differently than those of Israel?
----------------
The writer served as Deputy Director of Communications and Policy Planning in the Prime Minister’s Office from 1996 to 1999.