Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The intractable problem of self-perpetuating Palestinian victimhood

    If peace is ever to come to the Levant, and the Palestinians are to sort out their problems, they really must deal with the intractable minority (a substantial minority, but nevertheless a minority) within their midst who are psychologically addicted to victimhood, to playing the martyr. They gain a great deal of psychological gratification from perpetuating this situation.

    It reminds me very much of a mate of mine whose girlfriend, an absolute nutcase, used to start screeching and throwing things at him, hitting him, and getting in his face saying "Hit me, you pussy". A few times he pushed her away and she fell over, injuring herself, and then she'd say "Now don't you feel like a big man" and would complain to his friends that he was abusive. Naturally he got rid of her pretty quickly, but that damaged mindset is very much reminiscent of a certain section of the Palestinian community.

    The substance of this can be seen in the Palestinian failure to grasp peace and freedom when it was within their grasp. In 1948, the UN committee suggested that the Jewish-majority areas be permitted to form their own government. To a normal (not insane, not religious nut, or histrionic martyr) that sounds perfectly reasonable. Of course, they refused and with their Arab sugar daddy's, tried to murder or expel all the Jews in the Levant. They lost, and subsequently refused to make peace or accept that they do not have a right to enslave the Jews of Palestine and make them into dhimmis

    In 1967, Syria and Egypt were determined to have war with Israel. They expelled the UN peacekeepers from Sinai, and then blockaded the Strait of Tiran, which Israel had specifically said it would consider an act of war. Syria and Egypt engaged Jordan as a secret ally (despite Israel begging Jordan to stay out of it). Israel concluded it wouldn't just sit around waiting for them to attack, struck first and absolutely cleaned their clocks. Few nations have suffered such pathetic and humiliating defeats as the Arabs did in 1967, and it was completely self-inflicted. Israel wouldn't even be present in the West Bank today if Jordan had not joined the Syrian-Egyptian war coalition and commenced an attack on Israel.

    Despite all this, in 1968 in pursuance of UN resolution 242, Israel offered peace terms where it would withdraw from Sinai, Golan Heights, Gaza and West Bank, in exchange for peace and recognition. The Arab world unanimously refused and vowed to destroy Israel. This must be the first war in history where the total victor pleaded for peace and for terms to return the conquered land, and the defeated refused.

    In the 1990s, Prime Minister Rabin managed to engage a very productive peace process with Arafat. The PLO recognised Israel's right to exist and rejected the use of terrorism. In exchange, Israel accepted the existence of legitimate Palestinian aspirations for statehood. In 1995, Prime Minister Rabin was unfortunately assassinated by an Israeli right-winger, and Shimon Peres took over. Peres, and the Israeli Labour Party generally, was determined to continue with the peace process, but Hamas could not let PLO and Israel make peace and commenced a campaign of terrible suicide bombings on buses, restaurants, in Tel Aviv, in Jerusalem. Hundreds died.

    In response, the Israeli population tacked right and in the special Prime Ministerial election in 1996, Netanyahu was elected leader and one of the best chances for peace was lost. Despite all this, another chance for peace arose in the 2000s.

    Ariel Sharon, a hard-right Likud man who I acknowledge was a butcher and war criminal re Sabra and Shatila, had an epiphany and realised that Israel could not continue on as it was. They had to come to a final settlement. In a highly commendable and brave political move, he left the Likud Party and started his own centrist Kadima Party, taking many Likud MKs with him, and making common cause with the Israeli Labour Party and the Israeli centre-left. As the first phase of this, he ordered the complete withdrawal from Gaza, including removing all Jewish settlers and all Israeli soldiers.

    He did this at great political cost, and in fact when Israeli withdrew from Gaza in 2005, there was no blockade that the pro-Hamas terrorist sympathisers like to pretend has existed forever, and their pathetic, bitter, unlettered ignorance of history. Sharon unfortunately had a stroke, but his successor Olmert was determined to continue on with the plan to repeat this in the West Bank (on different terms).

    Olmert went to Abu Mazen in 2008 and offered him an astonishing deal, the likes of which the Palestinians had never seen before and might never see again. Condi Rice quote "couldn't believe her eyes" at how advantageous it was to the Palestinians. It involved Israeli withdrawal from 94% of the West Bank, all settlers would be moved into the largest settlement blocks in the remaining 6%, while Palestine would be compensated with an equivalent amount of land from within the 1967 borders. Palestine would have sovereignty over the Jerusalem holy sites, there would be no Israeli military presence in the Jordan Valley and Palestine would be made contiguous through an underground highway linking Gaza and the West Bank.

    Extraordinarily, Abu Mazen didn't even deign to respond to Olmert's offer. He thought he would get a better deal under the next US president. And many think Abu Mazen does not want the Israeli's to leave anyway, as he relies on them to remain in power in some ways.

    Looking at all those opportunities where the Palestinians could have had their own state, in 1948, in 1968, in the 1990s, in the 2000s, it is very clear the Palestinians never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity. Of course, deluded far-leftists and terrorist sympathisers will conclude that the reason there's an occupation of Palestine is because Israeli Jews are fundamentally bad people, they are evil and they enjoy having to control and be responsible for the lives of millions of aliens. These unlettered fools truly believe that Israel enjoys the occupation and wants to keep doing it forever, despite all the historical evidence to the contrary (though being historical, they wouldn't be familiar with it because they usually have the memory of a goldfish historically speaking... they don't even remember as recentlyas 2005).

    So there you have it. Palestinian self-perpetuation of victimhood. Some of Palestine's leaders do it for cynical reasons of self-enrichment, and some (like Hamas, and a significant portion of the population) are like that girlfriend of my mate, who get off psychologically on victimhood, on seeing the dead bodies and the rubble and saying, "You see! You see! The Israelis are monsters and we are morally pure, helpless, victims"
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HeavyTeddy)
    Israel takes land, Palestinians lose land; that’s the way it works
    And Israel will keep annexing land until the occupation ends and they have their own state.

    They could have had their own state and avoided occupation in 1948. They could have ensured the occupation was only a year or two long by accepting UN resolution 242 in 1968. They could have restrained Hamas and ensured Peres and Arafat were able to complete the peace process in the mid-90s. They could have accepted the Olmert peace deal.

    But every time the Palestinians face an opportunity to end the occupation, they bottle it and find some excuse not to do it. Sad.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tsr1269)
    a) The Jews conquered the Canaanite.
    b) The Romans conquered the Jews.
    c) The Arabs conquered the "Romans".
    d) The Zionists immigrated and then demanded a state.


    Which one is the "odd one out"?
    D, because you used different language when each stage should be described the same, otherwise you are just confusing yourself. D should read

    d) The Jews conquered the Arabs

    So we're really just returning to the status quo ante that you admit existed in A. Simples
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    D, because you used different language when each stage should be described the same, otherwise you are just confusing yourself. D should read

    d) The Zionists conquered the Arabs

    Simples
    Who did the Arabs conquer?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tsr1269)
    Who did the Arabs conquer?
    The Arabs conquered the Byzantine Levant, and those campaigns were complete by around 640 AD.

    Pretty embarrassing that you don't know basic Islamic history
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tsr1269)
    Who did the Arabs conquer?
    You're a fan of Dieudonne M'bala M'bala, right?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    The Arabs conquered the Byzantine Levant, and those campaigns were complete by around 640 AD.

    Pretty embarrassing that you don't know basic Islamic history
    So then when did the Brits arrive on the scene and who did they "conquer"? I suppose the Brits were the illegal immigrants?

    Cause that's strange, I don't see them there now...

    (Original post by young_guns)
    You're a fan of Dieudonne M'bala M'bala, right?
    Had to type his name in google...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Is it morally and ethically wrong that Israel's advancement in the West Bank is Dwarfed by the likes of Scottish independence, England Euro qualification, EU issues and Russia?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tsr1269)
    So then when did the Brits arrive on the scene and who did they "conquer"? I suppose the Brits were the illegal immigrants?

    Cause that's strange, I don't see them there now...
    Are you trying to change the subject? You asked "Who did the Arabs conquer?", implying you were unaware that the Arabs weren't the original inhabitants of Palestine.

    The real question is, why were you not aware of this? Given you spend every single day of your life on this thread, given you are so obsessed with this subject (despite being unwilling to be anything other than an armchair general, no plans for ever putting your own life at risk for the cause), why are you so lacking in basic historical knowledge of Palestine?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tsr1269)
    Had to type his name in google...
    Oh really? You should look up some of his material, you and he seem to have a lot in common. I think you'd really enjoy his stuff, his style is right up your alley

    I genuinely think you would enjoy his stuff.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    Are you trying to change the subject? You asked "Who did the Arabs conquer?", implying you were unaware that the Arabs weren't the original inhabitants of Palestine.
    You haven't heard of a rhetorical question?

    You see, the above is a rhetorical question. Perhaps as you seem slow to understand, I shall put a rolling eyes emoticon at the end of my sarcastic/rhetorical points. :rolleyes:

    The real question is, why were you not aware of this? Given you spend every single day of your life on this thread, given you are so obsessed with this subject (despite being unwilling to be anything other than an armchair general, no plans for ever putting your own life at risk for the cause), why are you so lacking in basic historical knowledge of Palestine?
    So it turns out that the Zionists did immigrate and then demanded a state. I'm glad we agree.

    (Original post by young_guns)
    Oh really? You should look up some of his material, you and he seem to have a lot in common. I think you'd really enjoy his stuff, his style is right up your alley

    I genuinely think you would enjoy his stuff.
    Well, one can only give a good recommendation if one has experienced it and liked it himself so because you like his stuff, I shall look to see if I also have similar tastes to you, okay?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by young_guns)
    The intractable problem of self-perpetuating Palestinian victimhood

    If peace is ever to come to the Levant, and the Palestinians are to sort out their problems, they really must deal with the intractable minority (a substantial minority, but nevertheless a minority) within their midst who are psychologically addicted to victimhood, to playing the martyr. They gain a great deal of psychological gratification from perpetuating this situation.

    It reminds me very much of a mate of mine whose girlfriend, an absolute nutcase, used to start screeching and throwing things at him, hitting him, and getting in his face saying "Hit me, you pussy". A few times he pushed her away and she fell over, injuring herself, and then she'd say "Now don't you feel like a big man" and would complain to his friends that he was abusive. Naturally he got rid of her pretty quickly, but that damaged mindset is very much reminiscent of a certain section of the Palestinian community.
    The fact that I could simply replace every instance in this passage of the word 'Palestinian' with 'Israeli' and it would easily pass as a Palestinian denunciation of Israel makes it relatively clear that there's nothing which can be substantively addressed here.

    The substance of this can be seen in the Palestinian failure to grasp peace and freedom when it was within their grasp. In 1948, the UN committee suggested that the Jewish-majority areas be permitted to form their own government.
    The UN Partition Plan (which was actually suggested in 1947) gave the proposed Jewish state a good deal more than just the Jewish majority areas, shown here:
    http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ones_12147.PNG

    The proposed partition put more than half the land and population of Palestine under the control of the proposed Jewish state, despite the fact that the Jews were just a third of the population. Not to mention the fact that while the overwhelming majority of the Arab population had been born in Palestine and had family there for generations, the majority of the Jews had just arrived.

    Furthermore, the Jewish Agency's 'acceptance' (subsequent actions make it seem doubtful that their nominal acceptance was ever sincere) of the plan was not based simply on the basis of self-determination for Jewish areas; on the contrary, they still didn't think the plan gave them enough of Palestine.

    Of course, they refused
    It's quite a bit more complicated than that; many Palestinians accepted partition. So did some Arab leaders, such as King Abdullah of Jordan. Many of the leaders of the surrounding Arab states rejected partition, as did the British-appointed Muslim authorities in Palestine. So did Irgun and Lehi on the Jewish side, in addition to the aforementioned questionable 'acceptance' by the Jewish Agency.

    and with their Arab sugar daddy's
    Funny sugar daddies that supplied them with almost nothing. In contrast to the over $100 million sent to the Zionists from American supporters (the bulk of which was spent on military equipment), the Palestinian Arabs were promised just £1 million by the Arab League - and even that promise was never fulfilled. As for the Arab states' entry into the war in May 1948, they had no intention of assisting the Palestinians - they just wanted to carve up Palestine for themselves.

    In 1967, Syria and Egypt were determined to have war with Israel. They expelled the UN peacekeepers from Sinai
    Nasser initially requested that UNEF only vacate part of the Egypt-Israel border, in response to false reports from the Soviet Union that Israel was preparing an attack on Egypt. UNEF responded by withdrawing completely; they offered to redeploy on the Israeli side of the border, but the Israeli government rejected the offer.

    , and then blockaded the Strait of Tiran, which Israel had specifically said it would consider an act of war.
    Israel doesn't get to decide what constitutes an act of war. Nasser offered to refer the issue of the legality of the closure to the ICJ, but the Israeli government rejected the offer.

    Syria and Egypt engaged Jordan as a secret ally (despite Israel begging Jordan to stay out of it). Israel concluded it wouldn't just sit around waiting for them to attack, struck first and absolutely cleaned their clocks.
    Even the Israelis have admitted that Egypt was not intending to attack:

    "The Egyptian army concentrations in the Sinai approaches do not prove that Nasser was really about to attack us. We must be honest with ourselves. We decided to attack him" - Menachem Begin

    "Nasser did not want war." - Abba Eban, then Israeli foreign minister

    "The whole story about threat of extermination was totally contrived, and then elaborated upon a posteriori to justify the annexation of new Arab territories." - Mordechai Bentov, then Israeli cabinet minister

    "I do not believe that Nasser wanted war. The two divisions he sent into Sinai on May 14 would not have been enough to unleash an offensive against Israel. He knew it and we knew it." - Yitzhak Rabin, then Chief of Staff

    "I am convinved that our General Staff never told the government that there was any substance to the Egyptian military threat to Israel... All those stories about the huge danger we were facing because of our small territorial size, an argument expounded once the war was over, had never been considered in our calculations prior to the unleashing of hostilities. While we proceeded toward the full mobilization of our forced, no-one in his right mind could believe that all this force was necessary for our 'defence' against the Egyptian threat...To pretend that the Egyptian force concentrated on our border were capable of threatening Israel's existence not only insults the intelligence of any person capable of analyzing this kind of situation, but is primarily an insult to the Zahal [the Israeli Army]." - Mattityahu Peled, then Chief of Logistics for the Armed Forces

    Despite all this, in 1968 in pursuance of UN resolution 242, Israel offered peace terms where it would withdraw from Sinai, Golan Heights, Gaza and West Bank, in exchange for peace and recognition. The Arab world unanimously refused and vowed to destroy Israel. This must be the first war in history where the total victor pleaded for peace and for terms to return the conquered land, and the defeated refused.
    Again, later events can tell us a lot about the sincerity of this; practically from the moment he became President of Egypt in 1970, Sadat attempted to secure peace with Israel, yet they wouldn't even listen to him (with Moshe Dayan famously saying, "Israel has no foreign policy, only a defense policy") . Ironically, when the US finally dragged Israel to the negotiating table in the late 1970s, the result was a peace more favourable to Egypt than Sadat had initially offered in 1971.

    In the 1990s, Prime Minister Rabin managed to engage a very productive peace process with Arafat. The PLO recognised Israel's right to exist and rejected the use of terrorism. In exchange, Israel accepted the existence of legitimate Palestinian aspirations for statehood.
    Note how asymmetrical this supposed compromise was; the Palestinians renounced the use of violence to achieve their goals, and recognised the other side's full right to a state of their own. The Israelis did neither.


    Ariel Sharon, a hard-right Likud man who I acknowledge was a butcher and war criminal re Sabra and Shatila, had an epiphany and realised that Israel could not continue on as it was. They had to come to a final settlement. In a highly commendable and brave political move, he left the Likud Party and started his own centrist Kadima Party, taking many Likud MKs with him, and making common cause with the Israeli Labour Party and the Israeli centre-left. As the first phase of this, he ordered the complete withdrawal from Gaza, including removing all Jewish settlers and all Israeli soldiers.

    He did this at great political cost, and in fact when Israeli withdrew from Gaza in 2005, there was no blockade that the pro-Hamas terrorist sympathisers like to pretend has existed forever, and their pathetic, bitter, unlettered ignorance of history.
    Nope, the blockade was only introduced when Palestinians elected the 'wrong' people.

    Sharon unfortunately had a stroke, but his successor Olmert was determined to continue on with the plan to repeat this in the West Bank (on different terms).

    Olmert went to Abu Mazen in 2008 and offered him an astonishing deal, the likes of which the Palestinians had never seen before and might never see again. Condi Rice quote "couldn't believe her eyes" at how advantageous it was to the Palestinians. It involved Israeli withdrawal from 94% of the West Bank, all settlers would be moved into the largest settlement blocks in the remaining 6%, while Palestine would be compensated with an equivalent amount of land from within the 1967 borders. Palestine would have sovereignty over the Jerusalem holy sites, there would be no Israeli military presence in the Jordan Valley and Palestine would be made contiguous through an underground highway linking Gaza and the West Bank.

    Extraordinarily, Abu Mazen didn't even deign to respond to Olmert's offer. He thought he would get a better deal under the next US president.
    Abbas broke off the talks because Olmert announced his resignation - in large part because his proposed peace was pulling his government apart.

    I do feel sorry for Olmert as I do think he was genuinely willing to make peace; the trouble was he most likely didn't have the confidence of his government or the Knesset to do so.

    I'll ignore the strawman rant at the end for more or less the same reasons specified at the start of this post about the opening passage.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Cuba sends 6 tons of humanitarian aid to Gaza.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tsr1269)
    Cuba sends 6 tons of humanitarian aid to Gaza.
    I.e cuba sends weapons to hamas. There is a reason these guys were the enemy during the cold war

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Right)
    I.e cuba sends weapons to hamas. There is a reason these guys were the enemy during the cold war

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I think the aid was given to the PA and the Egyptian Red Crescent, not HAMAS.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Hi thanks for the missing link. These conflicts seem so pointless. Is n,t life more valuable than anything else.
    I can only understand this from a biblical perspective. I'm reading on the bullet proof marriage, is there such a thing here where every day is a trade in bullets
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tsr1269)
    I think the aid was given to the PA and the Egyptian Red Crescent, not HAMAS.
    I would happily donate crates of water and food to Gaza but never would I donate money. This is because I do not want to fuel this war.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Right)
    I would happily donate crates of water and food to Gaza but never would I donate money. This is because I do not want to fuel this war.
    Why not just let the Palestinians become self sufficient? :confused:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tsr1269)
    Why not just let the Palestinians become self sufficient? :confused:
    That would require economic stability. They could potentially build an economic basis if only Hamas were ousted. The problem is Hamas do not care for the economic stability of the region but rather their political and personal motives(for example they have not even incorporated economists into their government). We must remember Palestine makes up a very small region so natural recourses are out the question and agriculture is not reliable so they would need foreign direct investment. The problem is who would invest into a war torn region(unless for military purposes)?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Right)
    That would require economic stability. They could potentially build an economic basis if only Hamas were ousted. The problem is Hamas do not care for the economic stability of the region but rather their political and personal motives(for example they have not even incorporated economists into their government). We must remember Palestine makes up a very small region so natural recourses are out the question and agriculture is not reliable so they would need foreign direct investment. The problem is who would invest into a war torn region(unless for military purposes)?
    Why does HAMAS need to be ousted? Surely the first step is lifting the economic blockade imposed by the Israel no?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 8, 2017
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.