montelatici
Gold Member
- Feb 5, 2014
- 18,686
- 2,133
- 280
montelatici, et al,
In some respects, we are in part, still applying 18th Century logic. But again, there is a mix of a much more advanced concept trying to be applied.
(COMMENT)I know it is difficult to look at things from all angles after conditioning that makes it impossible to view a situation objectively.
To the indigenous people of Palestine, the Europeans that were settling in Palestine were no different than how the Europeans settling in the New World were viewed by the indigenous people of America.
It did not matter to the native people of the Americas that the Pope, for example, had divided the New World between Spain and Portugal, or that the British won the French and Indian War and took title to North America. To them, it was land they had lived on for many generations land it was being taken over by people from another continent.
It is the same for the indigenous non-Jews of Palestine.
Perhaps it would have gone better for the Native Americans had they peacefully allowed their land to be taken over without resistance. The same could be said about the Palestinians. But, that is something that runs counter to human nature. Put yourselves in the place of the Native Americans or the Palestinians. What would you do?
Nice analogy; thoughtful and insightful.
There is a significant difference in the two sets of conditions (North American Indian 'vs' Palestinian). In the case of the New World, whether we talk about the cultures and tribes that were made extinct (ex. Beothuk Tribes, Karankawa Tribes, Mandans Tribes, Chisca Tribes, Hachaath Tribes) or other tribes that were made near extinct (ex. Algonquian, Cherokee, Cheyennes, Iroquois, Lakotas, Pima, Seminole, Sioux, and Tuscarora). In contrast, the Arab was never in danger of extinction; even the Arab Palestinian grows in numbers (not diminishing).
Secondly, while the 18th Century treatment of the North American Indian was, to be sure, a black mark in the history of the US, today, whether you look Eskimo in the far North, the Pacific Islands (Samoans and Polynesians), or the tribes of the Continental US, these indigenous cultures are revered and granted special protections culturally, territorially, and commercially. This is a by-product of social growth within the species and recognition for the special needs over time.
I spoke-out before, for the special needs of the Jewish People. A similar theory and concept applies.
Most Respectfully,
R
Rocco, the analogy is not perfect, Europeans after WW2, were not as, what's the word, sanguine, and less driven to eliminate non-Europeans as they were 3-4 centuries ago. And, the non-Jews of Palestine had/have many millions of cultural "brothers" in close proximity. But being able to move up to 700,000 people out of an area to make it available nearly exclusively to Europeans was no mean feat.