From the Desk of Yahweh

Wow! I think I could actually worship/honor a god who spoke to me like that! Or any god who actually spoke to me.

Lobster speaks to my tummy.

It’s a good thing that the god of the Susquehannocks was a 97 pound weakling. First he allowed most of them die of small pox and then the christian god kicked his butt by letting the christians lynch the survivors in 1763. This means that there are no Native Americans who have a divine claim to Grouseland.

I, on the other hand, have been lead here by the great BIKE GOD, instructed to occupy the land, set up a campground, 10 miles of holey single tack trails, and a bicycle sanctuary. What ever happens in the future, the GREAT GOD OF BIKING will return this land to its sacred purpose.

(I didn’t find God ON my bike, I found God IS my bike!)

Not be to too critical, God, but doesn’t one spell that particular brand of craziness “meshugine”? Of course, if you say “mishiga”, then it’s “mishiga”. No argument here. Nope, not a bit. I’m not one of the Chosen, so Yiddish is not my first language and anyway, what the Hell do I know? I’m ex-Sothern Baptist and we are “chosen” for our lack of curiosity, lack of critical thinking, and true belief in the literal translation of scriptures (even when the one passage directly contradicts another passage. Again, not to be complaining. I’m sure that’s just Your wicked [Can I say that about You?] sense of humor).

So, anyway God, if these Jews get to be too much to bear and You want to choose some other sect, choose the Catholics. I’ve got good seats for that one &, God, I do love a good show!!!

This God seems not so much angry as just plain cranky. Like he’s gonna chase the Jews off his lawn with a pair of hedge clippers.

What’s BFF?

David,

Yo, Bro! (Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall set you free!)

Mike Z, BFF means “best friends forever.” It’s very popular among fifth grade girls who hate each other every other week but are sworn lifelong friends on the others. But I’m sure God isn’t that fickle…

Emmarie - Thanks. I guess it makes sense that they would need a more efficient, streamlined way to express eternal committment. Wouldn’t want to get carpal tunnel problems.

tess: I don’t get your response. Are you saying the Israelis only want all that water? Is that why that part of the world was a barren wasteland before the settlements? Or were there thriving communities there in Gaza before the 1967 unpleasantness? You do remember 1967? When those terrible Israelies fought the peace loving neighbors? I mean, just because the Islamic neighbors deported Jews who were living in their midst for, well centuries,if not Millenia when the nation of Israel was established, and then still wants them dead, that’s hardly a reason to take offense!! I guess If Israel would just not be filled with those people, than it would be just swell and all the worlds problems would go away!

Yeah,that must be it .

ChrisBix:

Yeah, I guess I would say that good part of the struggle would be the fact that there’s water there, which lead to the land becoming desireable to the Israelis to go ahead and claim the land instead of playing nice with the decendents of the people who drove out their Jewish populations. I wouldn’t be surprised if most of the religious arguments are held primarily by hard-liners who’re bitter about events that mostly happened long before they were born, and that most of the people there want the land that their gov’t promised them for settlements, which happens to have a nice bit of groundwater right beneath them that they can use for farming.

So of course, the Palestinians get all huffy over land that they held for generations, and probably got much huffier after realizing that the Israelis claimed most of the land with access to groundwater, so they’re going to fight for it, and again it’s probably the hardliners who use religious and anti-Semetic arguments to reclaim lost lands. Everyone’s just trying to protect their own, using whatever justifications, and in this case, with rather disasterous results.

And just to ask, how does one carve a country out of existing ones, and replace the population with a transplant of new people? Of course it’s going to piss off the natives and their allies because inevitably someone’s going to fight over a plot of land. And it’d make sense that the land fought hardest for has some natural resource that makes it attractive.

But in any case, as I’ve mentioned before, Clea Koff’s argument was far more eloquent than mine. You can find it in the back of “The Bone Woman.” It’s probably not a full explanation, but it’s food for thought.

Leslie,

You are completely right.
That is the problem.

Earthly rules of ownership become meaningless when GOD tells you that what ever you do is not only right, but glorifies his name.
So Jews can push out Palestinians under divine orders, and if there were Susquhannocks left they could come and claim my land. (And the tribes that had the land prior to them, etc.)

Any time one can wield the might of GOD for his own wants, he become the biggest problems that the world has.

Dee,
I’m betting against the god of the Susquhannocks. Any takers?

My money’s on him

ChrisBix,

Are you asking if the Palestinians had access to the ground water prior to the Israelis settled the area in the Gaza Strip? As I recall, the answer is marginally. I understand they had family wells, but for the most part they didn’t have the equipment to use the water for full-scale irrigation for water-intensive cash crops. But from what little I’ve actually garnered, they had orchards which might’ve been able to tap the water supplies (I don’t know how deep the roots actually grow, I’m not a botonist, nor do I know how close to the surface the wells actually are), and I imagine that Palestinians were mightily pissed when they found out what they could’ve grown if they had the technology before being booted off the land.

Now my question to you — are you saying that economics has nothing to do with the conflict at hand? That this is all just the problems between two religious groups? Or that this is really a giant family feud of biblical proportions?

ChrisBix,

Are you contending that Isreal had the right to create settlements in Gaza because the Palestinians didn’t have communities there?

I’m not sure if that’s accurate, but even if it were, you’re basically saying that any unpopulated area in one country is free game to the neighboring countries to come in and set up shop.

We’ve got a lot of unpopulated real estate in this country, but I’m sure we’d be a bit miffed if Canadians and Mexicans started moving in and claiming the areas for their countries. And I doubt the response, “Well you Americans weren’t really using it anyway” would set us at ease.

I think we all are trying to make this a much more simple issue than it actually is, especially considering the fact that none of us appear to be Israelis or Palestinians living in the area. Our perspectives, our access to information, etc. are clearly affected by prevailing opinions in Western media, philosophy, and politics. That being said, perhaps we should take a look at some of the issues involved.

Following the WWI and downfall of the Ottoman Empire, the League of Nations drew borders and created a name for the area called “Palestine.” It was placed under the “supervision” of the British (British Mandate 1920 - 1946), whose primary instruction from the League was to implement the Balfour Declaration of 1917, and the later Palestine Mandate of 1922. The two documents called for the creation of a national home for the Jews, but contemporaneously demanded that the religious and civil rights of non-Jewish inhabitants not be diminished.

Initially, no real opposition to Jewish immigration existed. Arabs and Jews shared the land peaceably. But, as anti-Jewish sentiment and WWII loomed in Europe, Jewish immigration increased markedly. Palestinian tenant farmers were displaced and had nowhere to go. Tensions rose, and violent attacks were visited on each side by the other. The Peel Commission of 1937 suggested segregation of Jewish and Arab areas as a means to resolve the conflict; this solution was rejected by both Jewish and Palestinian parties. As such, the plan was somewhat covertly carried out through immigration and real estate restrictions. Actual partitioning was not realised until the creation of separate Palestinian and Israeli states under the 1947 UN Partition Plan.

Many Palestinians and other Arab nations denied the institution of an Israeli state under the UN Plan. Some Jews did as well, which on the surface seems a bit odd. Why wouldn’t a Jew want a national refuge and homeland, particularly after the horrors of WWII? Why wouldn’t a Jew want to return to the land thought promised to her people by God? The answer isn’t so straightforward. To oversimplify: Many of the early Zionists were not particularly orthodox or even “religious” (to use the common, though fuzzy, distinction between religious and secular Jews). In their minds, Palestine, which obviously was an area of unrest, should have been avoided since conflict was what they were trying to escape. Argentina, Niagara Falls, and other sites were suggested as viable alternatives for the new Zion. Certain highly orthodox groups agreed, claiming that Jews have no right to their ancestral homeland until God himself restores them to it. Still other groups claimed that no earthly political power had the right to partition God’s land.

Nonetheless, most Jews supported the new Israeli state. Some who had opposed an Israeli state during planning offered support after its creation, thinking that relocation would be even more disastrous; that the fact of its creation indicated divine providence; that obtaining some land was a good first step towards later acquiring all of the “holy land”; etc.

The state was created, and on the date of British withdrawal the provisional Israeli government extended citizenship to all individuals within their borders. To quote the declaration:

“We appeal … to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions. We extend our hand to all neighbouring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and good neighbourliness, and appeal to them to establish bonds of cooperation and mutual help with the sovereign Jewish people settled in its own land. The State of Israel is prepared to do its share in a common effort for the advancement of the entire Middle East.”

Of course, this stated view did not reflect a uniform Jewish opinion, but it did serve to secure the civil rights of Palestinian inhabitants.

Though violence and terrorism had been perpetrated by both sides throughout the creation of Israel, the Arab-Israeli War of 1948 had, perhaps, the most lamentable effects. The armies of several surrounding Arab nations invaded Israel. A series of battles and truces followed, resulting in the death of thousands, the creation of many more refugees, and an increase in Israel’s borders by 50% over what was granted by the UN Partition Plan. Many additional battles have since been fought, with further border fluctuations. (For maps, see http://www.jafi.org.il/education/100/maps/)

So now we are left with questions as to why each group continues to participate in such obstinate and destructive manners.

For the Palestinians, one readily can understand their anger over lost communities and lands, the aggression of the Israeli military against innocent civilian populations, and the lack of any significant national or international structured political power. Moreover, it seems reasonable that these peoples now desire a “national homeland” in the same sense that the Jews once did, considering the blatant manipulation of and hypocrisy towards the Palestinian cause by neighbouring Arab states. (Reference, e.g. Black September - the use of “deadly force” by King Hussein of Jordan in 1970 to kill over 10,000 Palestinian refugees during an uprising; the killing of 20-30 Palestinian rioters by Egyptian policemen in 1989; the ejection of over 600,000 Palestinians from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia for national defence reasons following the Gulf War; etc.)

Jewish concerns can be appreciated in a similar fashion. The constant and continued aggression by certain neighbours and citizens of Israel has left many seeking larger borders and more violent military tactics for security reasons. (Recall the violent and drastic means with which the US responded to just one terrorist strike on 9/11. How much more so would the US behave under threat of invasion and/or repeated terrorist strikes?) Historical violations of peace accords, cease-fires, and treaties have not engendered much trust of the Palestinians or other Arab nations. As a result, some convincing Jewish rhetoric has depicted these groups as anti-Jewish (popular usage of the term “Semite” is technically incorrect; it properly refers to peoples of the Semitic language family, including Hebrews, Arabs, Ethiopians, etc.) with the goal of “driving [the Jews] into the sea.” Moreover, Israelis consider Israel their land: Religious Jews base their land rights in the will of God; moderates and secularists see the political creation and border expansion of Israel as valid as the creation of Pakistan. Improvements to the land in the form of irrigation, public planting projects, and permanent communities only cement this viewpoint.

It is the religious argument, however, that creates the most tension regarding occupation of the disputed territories. The land, according to this mindset, is a unified whole: It cannot be divided. It cannot be abandoned. It is sacred, and rightfully belongs to the Jews as a responsibility and reward for being the Chosen People. The disputed territories are not simply real estate in this context. Certain religious sacraments can only be performed within land borders specified in the Torah. Redemption of the world can only be achieved when all Jews have returned to Israel, and occupy the entirety of the “holy land.” Any compromise, as humane and desirable as it may seem, would in this view be a direct violation of God’s will.

As foreign as the above reasoning may seem, it is held in varying degrees by the largest and most active political constituency in Israel. The current government under Sharon has betrayed its own traditional power base by forcing the withdrawal of settlers from the Gaza Strip. The cycle of violence has produced no viable outcomes, but this withdrawal from disputed territories and the building of Separation Wall doesn’t seem to address any of the concerns.

Thanks, Ambrose, for a scholarly and dispassionate analysis of the situation in Palestine and Israel. I too see no viable outcomes here. I predict there will be no viable outcomes until both sides, at the same time, produce leaders who are willing to lay aside the old grievances and persuade their respective peoples to lay them aside as well. As long as both sides are convinced that God is on their side, there is no hope.

George,

As ambrose points out, it’s about more than real estate, so I don’t think compensation would suffice. Besides there is no infrastructure in the Palestinian territories to enable an equitable dissemination of any reparation package. See the article on Arafat in the latest issue of The Atlantic for some analysis of the rampant graft of the Palestinian leadership.

Any compensation would be horded by the leaders of the PA, keeping the general population in poverty convinced that the reparations were inadequate and they were cheated by the Israelis, and the struggle would continue.

I guess it gets back to hedera’s point that there won’t be any resolution until both sides have leaders committed to pursuing a compromise, rather than stoking fears and grievances of their people to maintain their positions in power.

Dee - Huitzilopochtli? Shit, I can’t even spell Huitzilopochtli! But maybe - just maybe - that’s Lobster’s middle name?

I wanna know how I can get included in WaterFouler’s prayers… Who do I gotta blaspheme aginst? Ahuramazda? Yahweh? Jeezus? Chinchilago? Odin? Huitzilopochtli? Or is the suggestion itself the ticket in?

Ambrose, good recap. What the UN declared (for so many reasons) was almost immediately hijacked by just about everyone with a vested interest. Of course, on the ground, things are always way more complicated. Some of the stories we got to hear (from both ’sides’) in Bosnia, Serbia, Rwanda, etc, remind me now of many of the stories heard in the months following the British withdrawal from Palestine and Israel. The good and the bad.

At least there are some individuals affected who know what it’s going to take, day to day, to keep things working. Unfortunately, as you say, MSM only reports part of the information, and most of the rest is reported by groups so diametrically opposed to each other that it really isn’t “news” at all. I guess you gotta be there.

Steve - you don’t want to get arrested for A Salt and Buttery!

Murray:

The study to which you refer has been debunked.

http://www.somareview.com/blogcomment.cfm?datekey=20050722

Includes my snarky comment.

Murray,

As I’m sure you’re aware, it’s known as “the placebo effect.”