On Israel (part 2), Helen Thomas, and the Right of Return. . .

One of the best criticisms of Zionism that I've heard, and somewhat clumsily stated by Helen Thomas recently, is that while a homeland for Jews is all well and good, but why put it in Palestine.  I can imagine my reaction if I was told that I was being forced to move from my apartment because the land was wrongly taken from the Sycuan Band a hundred years ago (which it probably was), would be something like "Wait, what?"

Now consider the rationale for Israel as presented to the Palestinians:

"Two thousand years ago, one group of Europeans (the Romans) utterly and completely destroyed Israel, and then for the next two thousand years, other Europeans had either shit on the Jews, or sought their complete annihilation.  So, to prevent any problems in the future, the Jews are setting up a homeland on your property.  Leave now." 

Their reaction has been pretty much what you expect - either the desire to destroy the invaders, or to point out the fact that it would make more sense to punish Germany and/or Europe by putting the Jewish homeland on German and/or European soil.  Which, I have to admit, makes some sense.

From the perspective of everyone else, though, putting a Jewish homeland in Israel/Palestine makes perfect sense.  First, it was where the Jews wanted to set up their homeland.  Second, Israel/Palestine has little to no resources, and its chief economic engine - that it sits smack dab in the middle of trade routes - has already been negated by modern technology.  In other words, the land in Israel, in the eyes of everyone but the Palestinians, is pretty much worthless, except for religious and historical tourism.  Given that the Jews could've asked for much, much more (and gotten it), everyone (except the Palestinians) recognized this solution as being a good one. 

This is especially true given that much of the discrimination against Jews came from their without a nation status, and providing a homeland would alleviate the core problems that bred the environment which produced the genocidal behavior found in Europe, and culminated in the Holocaust.  Given the history of the Jews, having a place to go when shit starts to get bad is a phenomenal idea.

At the same time, let's not forget that the Palestinians are basically getting fucked in the deal.  While its true that Israel is the ancestral homeland of the Jews, thanks to the efforts of some of my ancestors (*ahem*), Palestine is the actual homeland of the Palestinians.  And when the Jews moved in, most Palestinians ended up in refugee camps - where they've lived for over fifty years. 

And before I get to what should be done about the Palestinians, let me make this very clear - the whole line about Palestinians being Arabs, and that they should simply move to other Arab countries is ridiculous.  It would be like arguing that the Austrians should all move to Germany because they're Germans.  The fact is, Germany and Austria are different countries for a reason - the people have different histories and have developed different traditions.

Of all the countries in the Arabic World, real or imagined, the would-be Palestinian state is probably the closest to an actual nation-state.  The Palestinian people share the same religion, the same ethnic identity, and the same culture.  During elections, the Palestinian political parties (Hamas and Fatah) are formed around ideological differences, not sectarian ones. The debate is over what to do, as opposed to who we are.  So, I could see the Palestinian state succeeding if it managed to get past the whole have absolutely no economic resources thing.  (Seriously, look it up.  Palestine and/or Israel is like Ireland without the acres and acres of arable land).

So what should be done?  Well, first, the right of return (allowing Palestinians to go back to their homes) is basically DOA.  The whole point of Israel is that its a Jewish state, and an influx of Palestinians would fuck up everything.  But, I do think some kind of reparations need to be made to the Palestinians.  In this country, when the government takes property, it pays fair market value for what was taken.  Given that these people lost their homes, its only fair that the international community (particularly the EU) pay for their loss, particularly in light of the fact that the creation of Israel is a good thing.  Second, any time Israel wants to create a settlement or whatnot, the rule should be that the Israeli Government has to pay the Palestinians affected by the new construction fair market value of the property its taking. 

Doing those two things would help alleviate the economic problems inherent in the region.  Give these guys a passport to wherever along with the chunk of change, and people are less unhappy.  Who knows, maybe they'll find land that is, you know, arable and has some natural resources.

Third, there needs to be an independent Palestinian state.  How to connect Gaza to the West Bank, I don't know, but for the good of all parties involved, the occupation must end.  Otherwise, Israel will continue to devolve into an apartheid system akin to South Africa, and the Palestinians will continue to get shit on, be upset and engage in acts of terrorism.

Random Thoughts Blog. . .

As if you people care what I think, but its my blog, and apparently funded by the good people of Kaiser Permanente. Actually, that's a bit ironic as my employer made his money suing. . .but I digress.

Rather that a full blog post on any particular topic, I have been so inspired that I want to do a bunch at a time. Granted, I could avoid this by posting more often, but its my blog. . .err. . .Google's blog, but they let me play here. So bite me. Anywho, without further ado. . .

Birther and Deathers = Identity Politics: Usually, Democrats have been accused of playing identity politics. That is, the Dems allegedly get people to vote for them along racial and/or ethnic lines, instead of along policy lines. In the past that might have been true, but now its pretty clear that the GOP is playing identity politics for reals.* For someone like Sarah Palin, being an American means you have to be white, conservative and from a small town. Predictably, African American, Latino, LGBT, and urban dwellers noticed this in the last election and all voted for Obama. What you're seeing now with the birthers (who deny that Obama is even a citizen) and the Deathers (who think Obama is creating a death panel**, when he's not) are people who oppose Obama because he's a black guy with a Muslim-sounding name. And they go nuts because they think that everyone should know that. Of course, everyone does know that, and most don't care. Hence, they go nuts. Oh, and to the guy who brought a LOADED WEAPON TO A PRESIDENTIAL TOWNHALL - you're an idiot and you're lucky you didn't get shot or arrested for doing it. Now, knock it off. There are about a 1000 police at these things, so trust me, no one is going to mess with you.

But in all seriousness, identity politics is kinda scary because that sort of thing is usually a harbinger of civil conflict. In Iraq, for instance, elections are about identity first, and policy second. So, the ethnic tensions are increased and people end up getting shot. And quite frankly, if no one ends up shot at one of these town halls, I'm going to be very surprised.

* Any and all misspellings, and odd pluralizations are completely intentional.

** What Palin calls a "Death Panel" is actually a process whereby the senior citizen meets with a panel of doctors to discuss end of life care - when to pull the plug, when to go to hospice, etc. So, rather than impose end of life decisions on people, this panel is supposed to empower them. And the creation of this panel was created by the Republican Senator from Georgia, Johnny Isaackson.

Polygamy in Western Culture - So, I was watching "Clash of the Gods" last night on the History Channel (which, aside from the ridiculous notion that the myths may be true, is a pretty good show), featuring both Hercules and Zeus. In both instances, Hera's vindictive jealousy was pretty well explored. What struck me was that while I remembered that Zeus was a hornball, and had numerous affairs with everyone, I did not remember that Zeus largely took power thanks to his ability to forge relationships with powerful entities. He was, in essence, a politician. And like all politicians, the need to be liked carried over into his personal life, and hence his numerous affairs.

What's also interesting is that unlike many other cultures in that part of the world, the Greeks never really developed polygamy. Generally, a man had one wife, and then several lovers (or he just fucked the slaves). Rome too, never really developed polygamy. I think, in part, this has to do with the fact that Roman and Greek women were more equal to their men than were the women of other cultures. Thus, the Hera figure - the angry, jealous wife - becomes the God that women pray to. And in legend, wronged women like Clytemnestra kill their men (though Clytemnestra had a lot of good reasons to kill her husband). So, there was some fear by the men that if they went too far, their women would try to kill them (which Hera apparently tried).

What's also interesting about this lack of polygamy, is that when Christianity developed, it was heavily influenced by the Romans and the Greeks. So, its not surprising that Christianity, for the most part, does not allow polygamy, while Islam (which is also derived from Judiasm) does. Judiasm, interestingly enough, allowed polygamy but dropped the practice.