Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

American Indians Aren t Like Palestinians
Front Page Magazine ^ | 04/09/02 | David A Yeagley

Posted on 04/12/2002 9:25:08 AM PDT by Andy from Beaverton

American Indians Aren’t Like Palestinians

FrontPageMagazine.com | April 9, 2002

MANY PEOPLE SEE A SIMILARITY BETWEEN American Indians and today’s Palestinians. I’m Comanche Indian. I see no similarity whatsoever.

Comanches were once "Lords of the South Plains," (Wallace & Hoebel, 1952). Arabs living in Palestine have never dominated anything but goats. Comanches were independent, and certainly not supported by two billion other Indian ‘brothers,’ like the Palestinian Arabs claim they’re supported by the Arab world.

There’s no similarity in the land claim issue. Comanches, never numbering more than six or seven thousand, were simply strong enough to take over the American southwestern plains, first from other Indians, then from white people. Palestinians have accomplished nothing but suicide bombings.

Palestinian Arabs are not indigenous to Palestine. They are leftover Arabs, residual of another age. Knowing Arab history is vital to understanding the situation in the Middle East. (Joan Peters’ From Time Immemorial (1984) is a ‘must read’ on this subject.)

Arabs are from Arabia. Beginning in AD 622, under Mohammad, Arab "prophet" of Medina, the Islamic religion became a war machine and aggressively expanded from the Arabian Peninsula to all directions until AD 750 when it controlled North Africa westward to Spain and southern France, northward to Palestine and Armenia, and eastward 400 miles past the Indus River.

It was spectacular achievement, one which clearly proved Islam to be not a religion of peace, but of dominance. Arabs intermarried, enslaved, and otherwise lorded over every culture they encountered. Arabs established the African and Asian slave routes, which are still used today for slave trade out of India and Nepal, as well as Africa and the Far East.

European Christians finally fended off Islamic dominance to the east and west. By the 15th century, Muslims were ousted from Spain and from most of the Balkans by the 17th century. Mongolians broke Islamic dominance in the Orient. The last phase of Islamic political dominance, the Ottoman Empire (Turkey), ended in 1840 when Constantinople submitted to terms of Western powers in its dispute with Egypt. Turkey’s government declared itself secular by 1922.

During all this time Palestine was little more than a wilderness of nomads, loosely associated groups of provincial subdivisions with frequently changing administrations. The people were a "pan-Arab" mix of gypsy-like leftovers, whom the General Syrian Congress of 1919 declared to be "the southern part of Syria." It wasn’t considered "Palestine," a separate Arab nationality, until the 1967 Six-Day War of Israel’s boundary expansions.

A ‘Palestinian Arab nationality’ was something Musa Alami began asserting after 1948, as a political reaction against Israel. As R. Sayigh wrote, "A strongly defined Palestinian identity did not emerge until 1968, two decades after the expulsion [of some Arabs living in parts of Palestine]," (Journal of Palestine Studies, 1977). In twenty years, Alami’s myth took effect.

But the land-by-residence claim gives Palestinian Arabs even less right. In 1950, United Nations Relief and Work Agency (UNRWA) defined a Palestinian Arab as one who had lived in Palestine a minimum of two years before 1948. This is no ancient claim.

The ancient, indigenous inhabitants of Palestine are long perished from the earth. Canaanites, Phoencians, and then Philistines, all were dominated by the Israelites before 1060 BC. Most of these cultural identities dissolved completely by the neo-Babylonian age, or, the 6th century BC.

Arabs weren’t even in Palestine until the mid-7th century AD, over a thousand years later, after Palestine’s 1,300-year Jewish history. Arabs later living in Palestine never developed themselves or the land, but remained nomadic and quasi-primitive during their 1,200-year stay.

Then a stronger people - modern Jews who’d been expelled from their homes in Europe and in Arab countries - came in and conquered (without annihilating) the Palestinian Arabs.

As a Comanche Indian, I’m sensitive to this history. I believe the conqueror has a right to what he has conquered. No one owns the land. Only he who is strong enough to possess it will control it and the people living on it. That’s the law of war.

Teddy Roosevelt once said, "Let sentimentalists say what they will, the man who puts the soil to use must of right dispossess the man who does not, or the world will come to a standstill." (W. T. Hagan, Theodore Roosevelt and Six Friends of the Indians, 1997). The land developers, the agrarians, have become stronger than the hunters.

In the case of Comanches, we lost a magnificent hunting empire, and a lot of ego with it. In the case of "Palestinian" Arabs, what is lost? Why their sense of humiliation?

Dr. David A. Yeagley teaches humanities at the College of Liberal Studies, University of Oklahoma. His opinions are independent. He holds degrees from Yale, Emory, Oberlin, University of Arizona and University of Hartford. He is a member of the Comanche Tribe, Lawton, OK. For more information on Dr. Yeagley's initiative to teach patriotism in the schools, click here. E-mail him at badeagle2000@yahoo.comView his website at http://www.badeagle.com.



TOPICS: Editorial; Foreign Affairs; Israel
KEYWORDS: indian; israel; jews; palestinian
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-33 last
To: omega4412
Thanks for the info!
21 posted on 04/12/2002 1:45:15 PM PDT by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
So the 10 Northern tribes weren't lost afterall?
22 posted on 04/12/2002 1:47:09 PM PDT by Dixie republican
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: gfactor
if they're miraculous, then they wouldn't be studied as examples of strategic insight.

Are miracles limited to that which cannot be explained? Nope. God repeatedly used armies and nations to do his bidding in the OT, e.g. God brought Assyria and Babylon against Israel and Judah when they resorted to idolatry. For the sake of argument, let us dispense with the word miracle and simply say that God's hand is in Israel's existence. You can attribute Israel's victories to strategic and tactical superiority if you like, but I believe God's hand is in it. I believe Israel's very existence is very difficult to explain away. Can you name another nation that reformed after 2000 years?

23 posted on 04/12/2002 1:52:33 PM PDT by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Dixie republican
No, I do not believe they were lost.
24 posted on 04/12/2002 1:53:56 PM PDT by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: gfactor
By the way, military strength will not save a nation that God wants to destroy. The northern kingdom of Israel was at its peak of power when it was obliterated by the Assyrians. God uses other nations and armies to punish wicked nations (as he used Joshuas armies to punish the Canaanites). All empires fall because all empires progress eventually towards morally and politically awfulness (U.S. is headed that direction now).
25 posted on 04/12/2002 2:11:47 PM PDT by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: tractorman
If the Palestinians are really like the American Indians, then the best way to settle the dispute is to let the Palestinians run all the casinos in Israel.

Been there. Done that.

26 posted on 04/12/2002 2:53:09 PM PDT by Alouette
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Andy from Beaverton
Bump.
27 posted on 04/12/2002 3:17:06 PM PDT by EverOnward
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
You can attribute Israel's victories to strategic and tactical superiority if you like, but I believe God's hand is in it.

in '73, it was more like richard nixon's resupply effort.

I believe Israel's very existence is very difficult to explain away.

no. its quite simple. look at the story. one reason can be that they are the #1 recipient of the #1 giver of military aid.

28 posted on 04/14/2002 12:26:27 AM PDT by gfactor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
You can attribute Israel's victories to strategic and tactical superiority if you like, but I believe God's hand is in it.

in '73, it was more like richard nixon's resupply effort.

I believe Israel's very existence is very difficult to explain away.

no. its quite simple. look at the story. one reason can be that they are the #1 recipient of the #1 giver of military aid.

29 posted on 04/14/2002 12:26:27 AM PDT by gfactor
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Andy from Beaverton

30 posted on 04/14/2002 12:29:14 AM PDT by Sir Gawain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gfactor
no. its quite simple. look at the story. one reason can be that they are the #1 recipient of the #1 giver of military aid.

IF aid is the key, then why are Egypt and Palestine so weak? hmm? Israel bought some F-15's and 16's, and guess what - they made the aircraft BETTER! They also have better trained pilots, and a more efficient system of pilot rotation. Israel doesn't need our aid to beat the daylights out of the likes of Arafat, Syria, Arafat and Hussein. They just need the moral courage and will - something the schizphrenic Bush Administration knows nothing about.

31 posted on 04/17/2002 7:30:23 AM PDT by exmarine
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: gfactor
The Arabs were loaded to the gills with weapons in '48, '67 and '73, and far outnumbered the surrounded nation of Israel with its back to the sea, but got their tails kicked. It was a greater upset than the Colonists against the Brits in the Rev. War. Prophesied thousands of years before, also.
32 posted on 04/19/2002 10:14:54 PM PDT by razorbak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: exmarine
In Genesis 15, God promises all of the land between the Nile and the Euprates to all of the descendants of Abraham. This includes both Isaac, the father of the Jews and Ishmael, the father of the Arabs. It includes Jews but is not exclusive to Jews.


33 posted on 07/03/2002 2:55:28 PM PDT by ganesha
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-33 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson