Jeremy Pallant

... but Native Americans are not?

Suaup

When the Native Americans learn to utilize and monopolize the business and industry of nation states, and use that influence politically during their formative years, they too can have a nation.

It comes down to the Zionist faction of the Jewish people are incredibly business and power savy. Almost every nation they've been in, they've managed to put themselves into the top business branches. Thus, they have power with their money.

During the U.N. debate regarding splitting Palestine into two territories, one for the Jewish people and one for the native Arabs, the Jews won over the United States President and used their power and influence to get the UN to side with them. Their power basically got them half of a nation that the Arabs had lived in for thousands of years.

Imagine if next week the UN gave 60% of America to the Native Americans because of their "historic" ownership of the land, before we came to power. That's what happened in Israel, with the Arabs being shafted. Which is where a lot of the hostility stems in this conflict. What's worse is the Zionists leaders at the time such as Israel's first prime minister were quoted as saying they would never recognize a true partition. That after it was established, they would take over all the land of Eretz Israel. So in many regards, they even provoked the Arabs into the fight.

Of course, they lost their chance at keeping half of what used to be their country when they attacked the Jewish people along with the rest of the Arab states.

Jeremy Pallant

My question was this. Why are the Jews entitled to a country of their own, but Native Americans are not?

Your response does not answer this question.

Suaup

I don't think the two situations are comparable given the several hundred years difference.

The native Americans losing their land to settlers is comparable to the Jews originally losing their land to the Arabs far far before the Jews re-gained control of the land.

Both these events occurred at a time when the world didn't have organizations such as the UN to settle these disputes and complications. In the 1940s however, what happened was illegal by the charter and mandate of the UN. The general council did not have the authority to split Eretz Israel in two. So their act was in a sense, just another more powerful group imposing itself on another such as we did to the Native Americans, and the Arabs did to the Jews hundreds of years ago.

There's a philosophical problem in your question regarding land ownership. How does one truly claim ownership of land? Through force it would seem. The native Americans lacked the ability to stand up to the incoming immigrants. They lack the power to bring their case to the world's attention in the modern world. As the world becomes more connected and global, we're still seeing the same old tactics applied through so called international bodies such as the UN. If the Native Americans had the political or financial power to influence the UN, the situation would be radically different.

I don't think there's any moral claim to them having their own land, just as there's really no moral claim for the Jewish people to claim control of Eretz Israel. They originally lost Israel through force. They regained it through force (through the powerful bodies imposing their will on the Arabs.) I'm not sure we can answer this morally.

Politically and philosophically it goes back to the ownership of land question.

ju'iblex

i think jeremy was asking why should they, your response is an answer to how did they.

Sue Sponte

Because it didn't require depriving wealthy U.S. citizens of land in the good ol' U.S.

A very thought-provoking question, particularly ironic when one compares the current faux dedication to the well-being of Iraqis in the context of our deplorable historical treatment of Native Americans.

Jeremy Pallant

Ju'ilblex does raise a good grammatical point.

How the Jews achieved their country is not what I was asking about.

Why should the Jews be entitled to a country of their own, but not the Native Americans?

Suaup

The irony sue, is it's true. The world hasn't changed all that much.

Even with international bodies such as the UN, they are just a way for the nations involved to apply their power to reach their agenda. Acts of hostility hidden under the name of legitimacy.

However, despite the UN, what happened in Iraq is a clear cut case of a powerful nation imposing itself on another and simply taking their land for its own agenda.

Force dominates. With the Native Americans, if there is a moral claim, it's to the land we call the United States of America. Who is going to challenge the government and people already in place, who have lived here for 200 or so years and grant the Native Americans chunks of our land?

That's what happened to the Arabs in Israel (which is why I'm sympathetic to the Palestinian's side of this as well.) What happened to them is comparable to if the United Nations and the entire world gave 60% of America back to the Native Americans today, through force, because of 'histortic and religious claims.' A minority granted a majority of the land. There were over 1.5 million Arabs in the land, who had lived there for hundreds of years, and roughly 600,000 people are given 60% of the land. Many of those 600,000 had been there for less than 10 years and had just immigrated.

Imagine of the land the UN gave the Native Americans included central costal spots, prime farm land, etc. Places where Americans decided to live for the natural resources.

As such, the Jews really had no claim to Israel or their own nation other than the powers that be saying they should have them. Why? The power of the Jewish people in the modern business world. However, when they defeated the Arabs in the war, Israel got control of the land through the traditional way other nations do, they took it by force. Thus, they have control of the land through legal means now.

Jeremy Pallant

Land ownership is a myth. Prior to the Zionist movement, the residents of what is now called the Middle East lived in comparative peace were they Muslim or Jew or Christian.

The Ashkenazim were European. They were American, British, Polish, Russian, German etc. Yes, they were persecuted. Are they entitled to their own country? No! They are Europeans.

In the US the Negroes suffered worse persecution. Do you think that the blacks are entitled to their own country?

My family came over to the British Isles with William the Conqueror. Though either French or Norman in origin, we are now English. Have I a right to return to France to reclaim lost family lands? Of course not.

Yet with respect to the Jews, apparently this is totally acceptable. When it comes to ownership of the land.

Vorkosigan

The Jews were able to form their own state in Palestine because they were able to convince the world that they had a moral claim to one. Simple as that.

Vorkosigan