Should Palestine be granted statehood?

[nursebenjamin]

Should Palestine be granted statehood? Why does Obama oppose Palestine statehood at this time, all the while supporting self determination in other Arab countries? Why are U.S. Republicans rejecting aid to Palestinians, even though Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, supports sending such aid which, among other goals, is intended to build an economically viable, politically moderate Palestinian state. Should the international community oppose Israeli settlement expansion in the West Bank? Do such settlement expansions make "direct negotiations" between Israelis and Palestinians impossible? Should any Resolution be delayed until the West Bank is sufficiently populated by Israelis so that their presence is irreversible? Can the 4.6 million Palestinian refugees now living abroad[1] ever be allowed to return to Israel? Does the American right-wing secretly hope that negotiations between Israel and Palestinian fail, with war and Armageddon being the ultimate goal? What role does religion play in the Mid-East peace process?

[JohnPaul]

'Should' is a beautiful word. The important thing is what we should do. The question will be settled when the US Government stops supporting racist colonialism, and that depends on the US electorate. Otherwise the settlers will keep on killing children forever.

Frankly your post reeks of blood libel.

The racists have killed getting on for 2.000 children over the last ten years (as against 123 settler children, before you ask), and that is a fact. The racists' only answer is to attempt to dehumanise the owners of the Land by saying they use their children as shields, which is a blood libel if you like. Colonialism always ends in murder, but a policy of deliberately murdering children is totally obscene even among colonialist racists, as is pretending it isn't happening.

Evidence? Start with the word racist and go from there.

Hello, Iolo,

I have read a little of the history of England, you know. Just thought I would mention that. I especially remember the part about the germanic tribes, Angles and Saxons, invading Celtic England, massacreing the Celts and driving them to the fringes. What about the more recent and still ongoing English "colonization" of Northern Ireland? Get your settlers out!

Oh, some men fight for silver
And some men fight for gold,
But the IRA is fighting for
The land that the Saxon stole.

I won't even mention the atrocities committed by the English during the Irish "rising" of 1916. Remember there are more Irish in America than there are in Ireland, so don't get snippy about it!

Erin go Bragh!

John

[Iolo]

[Evidence? Start with the word racist and go from there.

Go to 'If Americans Knew'. It is a very conservative statement of the murder-facts and the criminal behaviour of the Occupation. If you seriously suppose 'Israel' is not racist, I suggest you attempt to visit it as a Native.

[Iolo]

'Should' is a beautiful word. The important thing is what we should do. The question will be settled when the US Government stops supporting racist colonialism, and that depends on the US electorate. Otherwise the settlers will keep on killing children forever.

Frankly your post reeks of blood libel.

The racists have killed getting on for 2.000 children over the last ten years (as against 123 settler children, before you ask), and that is a fact. The racists' only answer is to attempt to dehumanise the owners of the Land by saying they use their children as shields, which is a blood libel if you like. Colonialism always ends in murder, but a policy of deliberately murdering children is totally obscene even among colonialist racists, as is pretending it isn't happening.

Evidence? Start with the word racist and go from there.

Hello, Iolo,

I have read a little of the history of England, you know. Just thought I would mention that. I especially remember the part about the germanic tribes, Angles and Saxons, invading Celtic England, massacreing the Celts and driving them to the fringes. What about the more recent and still ongoing English "colonization" of Northern Ireland? Get your settlers out!

Oh, some men fight for silver
And some men fight for gold,
But the IRA is fighting for
The land that the Saxon stole.

I won't even mention the atrocities committed by the English during the Irish "rising" of 1916. Remember there are more Irish in America than there are in Ireland, so don't get snippy about it!

Erin go Bragh!

John

You are talking to the wrong man: I have invested a great deal of time to opposing that sort of colonialism too, and supporting the struggle in the Six Counties. The current genetics, however, suggest the all over Britian the proportion descended from 'Anglo-Saxons' is around five per cent, the majority - all over Britain and Ireland - being descended from those who left - essentially - Euskadi as the ice moved north and moved with it. A Chymro dw'i, wrth cwrs.

[JohnPaul]

Iolo wrote:

You are talking to the wrong man: I have invested a great deal of time to opposing that sort of colonialism too, and supporting the struggle in the Six Counties. The current genetics, however, suggest the all over Britian the proportion descended from 'Anglo-Saxons' is around five per cent, the majority - all over Britain and Ireland - being descended from those who left - essentially - Euskadi as the ice moved north and moved with it. A Chymro dw'i, wrth cwrs.

Hello, Iolo,

My mother was of Irish ancestry but I have never been to Ireland and certainly do not read Gaelic. I do support the struggle of the IRA in principle, but my interjection of it here was only an opportunistic smart-ass remark.

I see many similarities between the English occupation of Northern Ireland and the Israeli occupation of the West Bank in Palestine.

I believe colonialism is an inevitable and necessary part of the development of a world in which some peoples lag far behind others. Atrocities and deliberate injustices should be condemned, of course.

Incidentally, I forgive England for its "taxation without representation" of the American colonies which partly led to the American Revolution in 1776. I believe the British government of King George III was (were?) fully justified in taxing the American colonies to help pay for the French & Indian War (I believe that war is called something else in England, but I won't bother to look it up now). After all, that war was mostly for the benefit of the American colonies and it is reasonable that they should have helped pay for it. Without it, America would now be a French colony and you know how the French are!

Incidentally, I am very surprised to learn that the population of Britain is only 5 percent of Anglo-Saxon descent. I thought the Angles and Saxons conquered most of England. I assume the earlier Euskadi were Celtic? I have also read that the English language is now about 60 percent of Latin origin, mostly through the Norman French conquest of 1066.

John

[Iolo]

Iolo wrote:

You are talking to the wrong man: I have invested a great deal of time to opposing that sort of colonialism too, and supporting the struggle in the Six Counties. The current genetics, however, suggest the all over Britian the proportion descended from 'Anglo-Saxons' is around five per cent, the majority - all over Britain and Ireland - being descended from those who left - essentially - Euskadi as the ice moved north and moved with it. A Chymro dw'i, wrth cwrs.

Hello, Iolo,

My mother was of Irish ancestry but I have never been to Ireland and certainly do not read Gaelic. I do support the struggle of the IRA in principle, but my interjection of it here was only an opportunistic smart-ass remark.

I see many similarities between the English occupation of Northern Ireland and the Israeli occupation of the West Bank in Palestine.

I believe colonialism is an inevitable and necessary part of the development of a world in which some peoples lag far behind others. Atrocities and deliberate injustices should be condemned, of course.

Incidentally, I forgive England for its "taxation without representation" of the American colonies which partly led to the American Revolution in 1776. I believe the British government of King George III was (were?) fully justified in taxing the American colonies to help pay for the French & Indian War (I believe that war is called something else in England, but I won't bother to look it up now). After all, that war was mostly for the benefit of the American colonies and it is reasonable that they should have helped pay for it. Without it, America would now be a French colony and you know how the French are!

Incidentally, I am very surprised to learn that the population of Britain is only 5 percent of Anglo-Saxon descent. I thought the Angles and Saxons conquered most of England. I assume the earlier Euskadi were Celtic? I have also read that the English language is now about 60 percent of Latin origin, mostly through the Norman French conquest of 1066.

John

Hi JohnPaul. Euskadi is the Basque Country. The key document is a book by S. Oppenheimer - its key features can be found in an article in - if I remember correctly - Prospect Magazine 123 on the Web. He is also dubious about 'Celts': it is essentially a linguistic term. Archaeology and genetics have been working as one. The current estimates of the British population under Rome is about four to five million - and rising in every study- while estimates of the number of Anglo-Saxon mercenaries and (possible) immigrants get as low as 10,000, so if these Germans 'drove' anyone anywhere they must have had very big busses. What's more, there is a strong argument that Saxon ships had no sails and would have had to be rowed down the coast to the narrowest point in the Channel - a journey of up to six months - so they'd have carried only soldiers. All this is, of course, keenly argued about, and certainly a dialect of German replaced a Celltic language in East Britannia. It seems likely, though, that the Plague of Diocletian was the most likely cause, the Saxons living in small, isolated settlements, the British in places with adequate corn-stores to attract plague-bearing rats, which enabled the pagans to take over from a shattered native aristocracy, as in Conquistador Mexico.

My own feeling is that the whole racist construction about the roots of 'England' on which we were brought up is closely parallelled by the myths about the 'Jewish' character of Palestine - the fact being, in both cases (as is true in most agricultural countries) that the bulk of the population is descended from the earliest settlers in both. When boss-people take over a country and drive out 'everyone' they mean 'everyone who WAS anyone' - about the same proportion as Occupy are protesting against.

May I please point out, if it isn't clear (can't make my mind up from what you write), that I am not English or in favour of the UK, but a Cymro ('Welshman' as they say in England).

[JohnPaul]

Iolo wrote:

Hi JohnPaul. Euskadi is the Basque Country. The key document is a book by S. Oppenheimer - its key features can be found in an article in - if I remember correctly - Prospect Magazine 123 on the Web. He is also dubious about 'Celts': it is essentially a linguistic term. Archaeology and genetics have been working as one. The current estimates of the British population under Rome is about four to five million - and rising in every study- while estimates of the number of Anglo-Saxon mercenaries and (possible) immigrants get as low as 10,000, so if these Germans 'drove' anyone anywhere they must have had very big busses. What's more, there is a strong argument that Saxon ships had no sails and would have had to be rowed down the coast to the narrowest point in the Channel - a journey of up to six months - so they'd have carried only soldiers. All this is, of course, keenly argued about, and certainly a dialect of German replaced a Celltic language in East Britannia. It seems likely, though, that the Plague of Diocletian was the most likely cause, the Saxons living in small, isolated settlements, the British in places with adequate corn-stores to attract plague-bearing rats, which enabled the pagans to take over from a shattered native aristocracy, as in Conquistador Mexico.

My own feeling is that the whole racist construction about the roots of 'England' on which we were brought up is closely parallelled by the myths about the 'Jewish' character of Palestine - the fact being, in both cases (as is true in most agricultural countries) that the bulk of the population is descended from the earliest settlers in both. When boss-people take over a country and drive out 'everyone' they mean 'everyone who WAS anyone' - about the same proportion as Occupy are protesting against.

May I please point out, if it isn't clear (can't make my mind up from what you write), that I am not English or in favour of the UK, but a Cymro ('Welshman' as they say in England).

Thanks for your very informative response. History was not my thing in school, but has become much more interesting now that I am old enough to be a part of it.

I did assume you were English from a comment you made in another thread, although you did not specifically say you were English, but then when you mentioned you opposed the English occupation of Northern Ireland, I thought you might be Irish. I never thought of Wales. I know very little about Wales, except that it lurks somewhere west of England, has an impossible original language, and Welshmen are supposed to be very sensitive and emotional. I also remember reading that the Anglo-Saxon invaders of Britain pushed the Celts into the mountains of Wales, so I assumed it was mountainous and mostly Celtic.

You say the early inhabitants of Britain were Basque and not Celtic? I read in school that the Celts were a wave of people who came out of Asia into Europe in prehistoric times and then were pushed to the fringes, including Britain, by later waves of Germanic people. The still later Slavs have not yet completed their invasion of Europe. I understood that the Basque language did not fit with any other language anywhere, and was limited to a small mountainous area between Spain and France.

I hope to read more from you here.

John

[Iolo]

Iolo wrote:

Hi JohnPaul. Euskadi is the Basque Country. The key document is a book by S. Oppenheimer - its key features can be found in an article in - if I remember correctly - Prospect Magazine 123 on the Web. He is also dubious about 'Celts': it is essentially a linguistic term. Archaeology and genetics have been working as one. The current estimates of the British population under Rome is about four to five million - and rising in every study- while estimates of the number of Anglo-Saxon mercenaries and (possible) immigrants get as low as 10,000, so if these Germans 'drove' anyone anywhere they must have had very big busses. What's more, there is a strong argument that Saxon ships had no sails and would have had to be rowed down the coast to the narrowest point in the Channel - a journey of up to six months - so they'd have carried only soldiers. All this is, of course, keenly argued about, and certainly a dialect of German replaced a Celltic language in East Britannia. It seems likely, though, that the Plague of Diocletian was the most likely cause, the Saxons living in small, isolated settlements, the British in places with adequate corn-stores to attract plague-bearing rats, which enabled the pagans to take over from a shattered native aristocracy, as in Conquistador Mexico.

My own feeling is that the whole racist construction about the roots of 'England' on which we were brought up is closely parallelled by the myths about the 'Jewish' character of Palestine - the fact being, in both cases (as is true in most agricultural countries) that the bulk of the population is descended from the earliest settlers in both. When boss-people take over a country and drive out 'everyone' they mean 'everyone who WAS anyone' - about the same proportion as Occupy are protesting against.

May I please point out, if it isn't clear (can't make my mind up from what you write), that I am not English or in favour of the UK, but a Cymro ('Welshman' as they say in England).

Thanks for your very informative response. History was not my thing in school, but has become much more interesting now that I am old enough to be a part of it.

I did assume you were English from a comment you made in another thread, although you did not specifically say you were English, but then when you mentioned you opposed the English occupation of Northern Ireland, I thought you might be Irish. I never thought of Wales. I know very little about Wales, except that it lurks somewhere west of England, has an impossible original language, and Welshmen are supposed to be very sensitive and emotional. I also remember reading that the Anglo-Saxon invaders of Britain pushed the Celts into the mountains of Wales, so I assumed it was mountainous and mostly Celtic.

You say the early inhabitants of Britain were Basque and not Celtic? I read in school that the Celts were a wave of people who came out of Asia into Europe in prehistoric times and then were pushed to the fringes, including Britain, by later waves of Germanic people. The still later Slavs have not yet completed their invasion of Europe. I understood that the Basque language did not fit with any other language anywhere, and was limited to a small mountainous area between Spain and France.

I hope to read more from you here.

John

Thanks. Our language was the original language of all Britain, and it is indeed Celtic. We were the only people in the Island who identified ourselves with the common British past, especially with the four provinces of Roman Britannia. Under Constantine the Third, yet another contender for the Imperial power, so many troops were withdrawn from Britannia to fight in dynastic wars that the Romans in Britain itself (all free men by that date) kicked out the imperial authorities as a waste of space in A.D. 410, the same year Rome itself fell. There seems to have been a long period of fairly prosperous self-government by the four provinces, but attacks by the Picts and Scots (Irish) led the three eastern provinces to hire German mercenaries ( a normal Roman practice) whereas Britannia Prima - draw a line from the Isle of Wight to Liverpool and it was everything west - probably hired British-speaking soldiers from north of the Wall (Rome, remember, had disarmed everyone). Histoy thereafter - for reasons we don't yet know - developed differently in east and west Britain.

The fashion in thinking about the past nowadays has moved away from great population-movements, and tends to concentrate on languages (Celtic in this case) spreading with agriculture or warrior aristocracies. The earlier ideas were influenced, I reckon, by what happened in America, but early European societies were more equal, where you have agriculture, new owners like to keep those who know the land to work it. It is a fascinating study, and we are learning more by the day. 'British Archaeology' is a good source.

Any time you want to know about Cymru/'Wales' I am always happy to be extremey tedious. Hwyl, Iolo