View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
deadman
Joined: 27 May 2006 Location: Suwon
|
Posted: Sat Jun 03, 2006 6:07 am Post subject: Israelis suffer forced evacuation trauma |
|
|
An article from the DEBKAfile (Israeli)
Quote: |
Several hundred Israeli youngsters still prey to post-traumatic stress nine months after forced evacuation from Gaza�s Gush Katif
May 31, 2006, 12:56 PM (GMT+02:00)
Social welfare workers report many cases of severe psychological damage, extreme depression, eating and sleeping disorders, some drug addiction and nervous breakdowns. Many children have run away from their families.
A large proportion of the 9,000 evacuees from Gaza are still scattered in makeshift or unfinished homes and left high and dry without employment or their communal framework. All the children therefore suffer grave difficulties in adjusting to temporary schools and many prefer to play truant.
DEBKAfile adds: Exploratory talks with West Bank communal leaders on further evacuations on a much larger scale are stalled by the government�s failure to make good on its commitments to rehabilitate the people evicted from Gush Katif. |
"Ooer, I feel just like a Palestinian" one youngster was heard to say.
(I'd be more sympathetic if the website wasn't so one sided) |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003 Location: I walk along the avenue
|
Posted: Sat Jun 03, 2006 7:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
(I'd be more sympathetic if the website wasn't so one sided) |
I'd be more sympathetic if they hadn't made a conscious decision to go live on land whose ownership is a matter of fierce contention. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
happeningthang

Joined: 26 Apr 2003
|
Posted: Sat Jun 03, 2006 8:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
So what?? Should sympathy be given on racial/party lines now?? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003 Location: I walk along the avenue
|
Posted: Sat Jun 03, 2006 8:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
So what?? Should sympathy be given on racial/party lines now?? |
Two scenarios:
1. Bob buys a car at his local car dealership. The car gets stolen. Bob is sad and angry.
2. Jim sees Mike and Tom having a fistfight over ownership of a car that is in Mike's driveway. The next day, Mike goes over to Jim's house and offers to sell him the car for real cheap. Jim buys the car, and drives it around for a few weeks. Then, the police come to Jim's house, and tell him that Mike had no authority to sell the car, and that it must be returned to Bob. Jim is sad and angry.
So do you have equal amounts of sympathy for Bob and Jim? I know I certainly don't.
Admittedly, the children didn't neccessarily choose to live on disputed territory, but the fault for that choice lies entirely with their parents. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Big_Bird

Joined: 31 Jan 2003 Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
Posted: Sat Jun 03, 2006 4:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
On the other hand wrote: |
Quote: |
So what?? Should sympathy be given on racial/party lines now?? |
Two scenarios:
1. Bob buys a car at his local car dealership. The car gets stolen. Bob is sad and angry.
2. Jim sees Mike and Tom having a fistfight over ownership of a car that is in Mike's driveway. The next day, Mike goes over to Jim's house and offers to sell him the car for real cheap. Jim buys the car, and drives it around for a few weeks. Then, the police come to Jim's house, and tell him that Mike had no authority to sell the car, and that it must be returned to Bob. Jim is sad and angry.
So do you have equal amounts of sympathy for Bob and Jim? I know I certainly don't.
Admittedly, the children didn't neccessarily choose to live on disputed territory, but the fault for that choice lies entirely with their parents. |
Good analogy.
Furthermore, what about the terrible trauma of Palestinians who were regularly evicted from properties that had been in their families possesion for generations? And what about the dreadful (and quite regular) instances of Palestinians being given just 5 minutes warning to evacuate their homes and not even have time to collect any of their treasured possession before their homes where crushed under bulldozers. Several years ago I recall reading an instance where the family didn't even have time to get a wheelchair-bound family member out and the Israelis bulldozed the over the house regardless - with the unfortunate disabled man still inside! |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003
|
Posted: Sat Jun 03, 2006 4:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Big_Bird wrote: |
On the other hand wrote: |
Quote: |
So what?? Should sympathy be given on racial/party lines now?? |
Two scenarios:
1. Bob buys a car at his local car dealership. The car gets stolen. Bob is sad and angry.
2. Jim sees Mike and Tom having a fistfight over ownership of a car that is in Mike's driveway. The next day, Mike goes over to Jim's house and offers to sell him the car for real cheap. Jim buys the car, and drives it around for a few weeks. Then, the police come to Jim's house, and tell him that Mike had no authority to sell the car, and that it must be returned to Bob. Jim is sad and angry.
So do you have equal amounts of sympathy for Bob and Jim? I know I certainly don't.
Admittedly, the children didn't neccessarily choose to live on disputed territory, but the fault for that choice lies entirely with their parents. |
Good analogy.
Furthermore, what about the terrible trauma of Palestinians who were regularly evicted from properties that had been in their families possesion for generations? And what about the dreadful (and quite regular) instances of Palestinians being given just 5 minutes warning to evacuate their homes and not even have time to collect any of their treasured possession before their homes where crushed under bulldozers. Several years ago I recall reading an instance where the family didn't even have time to get a wheelchair-bound family member out and the Israelis bulldozed the over the house regardless - with the unfortunate disabled man still inside! |
The Arab nations would have done the same thing (or worse) to Israelis if they won the 1948 war . and in fact they persecuted their Jewish populations after Israel was created. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
igotthisguitar

Joined: 08 Apr 2003 Location: South Korea (Permanent Vacation)
|
Posted: Sun Jun 04, 2006 11:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
The Arab nations would have done the same thing (or worse) to Israelis if they won the 1948 war . and in fact they persecuted their Jewish populations after Israel was created. |
Ironic you should mention this.
It is generally agreed that, prior to 48', the region was on the whole reasonably peaceful & stable ...  |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003
|
Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 12:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
igotthisguitar wrote: |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
The Arab nations would have done the same thing (or worse) to Israelis if they won the 1948 war . and in fact they persecuted their Jewish populations after Israel was created. |
Ironic you should mention this.
It is generally agreed that, prior to 48', the region was on the whole reasonably peaceful & stable ...  |
how so? wouldn't that have a lot to do with the fact that just about the entire mideast was under the control of the Ottoman Empire until 1923 |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
daskalos
Joined: 19 May 2006 Location: The Road to Ithaca
|
Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 7:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
And of course there wouldn't have been a 1948 war if the surrounding Arab nations had accepted the U.N. partition -- if they had, they would today be in possession of far more of what they call Palestine than they can ever hope for in any foreseeable future.
And I'm not sure you could convince Britain that the area was pacified during the years of they held the Mandate. The U.N. got involved because Britain decided to wash its hands of the whole bloody mess.
But yeah, it does take a certain unbelievable amount of chutzpah for Israelis to cry about the trauma of being forciby evicted from their homes. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Big_Bird

Joined: 31 Jan 2003 Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 9:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
daskalos wrote: |
And of course there wouldn't have been a 1948 war if the surrounding Arab nations had accepted the U.N. partition -- if they had, they would today be in possession of far more of what they call Palestine than they can ever hope for in any foreseeable future.
And I'm not sure you could convince Britain that the area was pacified during the years of they held the Mandate. The U.N. got involved because Britain decided to wash its hands of the whole bloody mess.
But yeah, it does take a certain unbelievable amount of chutzpah for Israelis to cry about the trauma of being forciby evicted from their homes. |
I've never really understood this rationale. Clearly, no other people would agree to give up half their territory to another group of people on the tenuous basis that their distant ancestors had resided there for a few centuries a couple of milinium ago. The English were occupied by the Romans until the early 5th century. If Mussolini and Hitler had won the war, and the Italians had demanded half of England (including London -which they pretty much developed) I doubt the English would have complied with or without a UN (or its equivalent) mandate. Neither would they agree to decendents of the ancient Brits (from Brittany or Ireland) claiming half their country, despite what one could argue a greater historical connection to the land than the Jews to Israel.
Also, remember that the UN was mostly made up at that time of Western nations. Imagine China and Japan were superpowers, and they dictated that half your country to carved up to accomodate members of a particular Asian population (perhaps a persecuted religious sect that had a 'book of Buddha' that specifically mentioned your country as promised real-estate) that they wanted to settle in your land (that your people had lived on for generations and generations).
Would you accept Asians telling you whiteys what to do with your land? Why should Arabs bow to the wishes of Europeans and Americans and give away huge territories accordingly? Would you meekly pack up your belongings, leave behind the house that had been in your family's possession for generations (ready for some Chinese family to walk in and inhabit) and head for the nearest refugee camp to beg for food for your starving children - just out of respect for a UN mandate devised by the powerful Asian nations? Would you accept that you were somehow less human and less deserving because you didn't have slanty eyes and yellow skin (features of the more powerful populations)? Why do we seem to have less empathy for those of a different appearance?
Secondly, it is well known among historians that the Israeli leadership at the time did not intend to settle for what the UN appropriated for them. They saw it as a necessary compromise, and intended to bide their time until they could seize more territory. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
daskalos
Joined: 19 May 2006 Location: The Road to Ithaca
|
Posted: Mon Jun 05, 2006 10:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The partition was made roughly along lines of populations. The areas ceded to the Jews were areas in which they were the majority, living on land legally acquired over the preceding hundred years or so. The Jews may have immigrated to the area on the basis of their tenuous, not to say fanatical religious claims, but the partition took into account who was there then.
Historians are certain of lots of things, but how the Israelis would have behaved had they been allowed peace is little more than a game of what-if conjecture, and we can't judge people today on the basis of what we're pretty sure they would have done.
And if those who decry the 1948 partition of Palestine would like to put their ideas into practice, they could raise their voices to stop the coming U.N.-mandated carving away of Kosovo from Serbia, also being done on the basis of population, without regard to who once owned the land. The difference here being, of course, that prior to the 1948 partition, there had never been a sovereign nation of Palestine nor even, I'd venture to say, any person on the planet who thought of himself as Palestinian. "Palestinians" were created by the actions of Israel and the reactions of her Arab neighbors, to whom the Arabs in Palestine were more important as a political tool than as a People, or as people.
Whether or not the partition was a good idea, whether or not the World had the right to impose that solution, it's done. Unless the world changes an awful lot, Israel is not going away. The Palestinians can either nurse their hatred and die of it, or they can come to the table without bombs strapped inside their coats to get the best deal they can, like any other people that's ever gotten its butt kicked in a war. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|