can you compare tibet and palestine?

[frogwoman]

well umm obviously, it's not exactly the same, but there's some stuff going on that is quite similar.

for example, there was a deliberate policy by the chinese government, over the last fifty years to encourage settlers to go and live in tibet in order to establish greater control, they were given land and jobs there to repay their loyalty for staying. and although tibet has some degree of autonomy nobody really seems to have an idea what their borders really are, and a lot of it seems to have been stealthily taken over by china, while at the same time giving them a government that seems to be under their control, but actually isn't.

China seems to have been doing a lot of this kind of thing, not just on tibet but on the border with mongolia, i saw a truly scary article a while ago, an interview with this settler guy who'd been given a farm on the border to "defend the frontier" should anything happen. the implication was that china might try to use these people and their families as a sort of vanguard so that they could try to expand their borders ...

if anyone knows more about this than me, (maybe jessiedog or someone) feel free to tell me im talking crap, but i just thought it might be an interesting question to discuss

 

[Idris2002]

There's a lot of stuff in the Russian media about how China is becoming a threat, apparently. . .

I think the wider question, really, is what sort of colonialism is going on in both cases?

I think it's a fair point to say that zionism in general drew on a lot of the colonial ideology that was popular in Europe in Herzl's time. The trouble with most people who make that point, though, is that they don't consider the particular factors that made zionism different from other nationalist and colonial ideologies.

This is particularly visible in the argument that Israel is carrying out apartheid policies in Palestine. Certainly, there are similarities between Israeli policy and that of the apartheid regime in South Africa. But there are fundamental differences as well, which have implications for political strategy.

Once the apartheid crowd in SA had finally had their backs pushed to the wall, Mandela was able to say, OK we'll cut you a deal. And the white ruling class made that deal because ultimately they were in it for the money. Zionism, on the other hand, is ultimately driven by fear, not capital accumulation. If those who adhere to Zionism ever found that their backs were ever pushed to the wall, I don't think they'd be inclined to cut their losses and bail out of the project altogether.

 

[frogwoman]

There's a lot of stuff in the Russian media about how China is becoming a threat, apparently. . .

I think the wider question, really, is what sort of colonialism is going on in both cases?

I think it's a fair point to say that zionism in general drew on a lot of the colonial ideology that was popular in Europe in Herzl's time. The trouble with most people who make that point, though, is that they don't consider the particular factors that made zionism different from other nationalist and colonial ideologies.

This is particularly visible in the argument that Israel is carrying out apartheid policies in Palestine. Certainly, there are similarities between Israeli policy and that of the apartheid regime in South Africa. But there are fundamental differences as well, which have implications for political strategy.

Once the apartheid crowd in SA had finally had their backs pushed to the wall, Mandela was able to say, OK we'll cut you a deal. And the white ruling class made that deal because ultimately they were in it for the money. Zionism, on the other hand, is ultimately driven by fear, not capital accumulation. If those who adhere to Zionism ever found that their backs were ever pushed to the wall, I don't think they'd be inclined to cut their losses and bail out of the project altogether.

but could you not also say that fear forms part of the reason for china's occupation?

i mean - if you look at the chinese policy towards tibet, and where it is positioned on the map, could you not say that the government is worried about tibet being a "back door" if you like into china itself? many of the settlers are actually living right on the border between china and the other countries, so it could be that they're trying to form some sort of barrier, maybe?

and tibet is pretty mountainous, and a lot of it isn't really suitable for farming etc, i'm not sure about their mineral resources, but perhaps it's done for a similar sort of reason?

 

[Streathamite]

ummm...I think Idris's point regarded the ideological motivation in each case. in the case of tibet, the invadors were the passionate, fiery and (actually quite) principled young men and women who had swept into Peking the year before. Theirs was an expansionist, evangelical mission, in that they had taken the red star from being the emblem of a bunch of 'bandits' in remote Yanan, to that of a nationa billion-strong. They were fed the line (whether true or not) of the Lamas were a barbaric feudalist relic, and theirs (the PLA's) mission was a liberating, civilising one (or, to put another way, the same bullshit all expansionist empires feed themselves).
FEAR was not really a PLA motivation - tho resentment of 'foreign' (i.e. british) involvement in Asia probably was.
Zionism, OTOH, was - as Idris points out - driven by fear, and a historically justified fear. It's 'engine' was not that the jews should conquer the world for its' own good, but that they needed to own one bit of it for their own protection

 

[frogwoman]

ummm...I think Idris's point regarded the ideological motivation in each case. in the case of tibet, the invadors were the passionate, fiery and (actually quite) principled young men and women who had swept into Peking the year before. Theirs was an expansionist, evangelical mission, in that they had taken the red star from being the emblem of a bunch of 'bandits' in remote Yanan, to that of a nationa billion-strong. They were fed the line (whether true or not) of the Lamas were a barbaric feudalist relic, and theirs (the PLA's) mission was a liberating, civilising one (or, to put another way, the same bullshit all expansionist empires feed themselves).
FEAR was not really a PLA motivation - tho resentment of 'foreign' (i.e. british) involvement in Asia probably was.
Zionism, OTOH, was - as Idris points out - driven by fear, and a historically justified fear. It's 'engine' was not that the jews should conquer the world for its' own good, but that they needed to own one bit of it for their own protection

really interesting post mate about the chinese revolution - that sums up my view on the origins of zionism aswell ...

what i am wondering though, is why they have clung onto it ? this is only a suggestion but china has always been vulnerable to invasion due to its size (japan in ww2, the british before that) and maybe they are trying to protect their frontiers by creating some sort of "buffer"?

which is part of the israeli motivation for the occupation of palestine as well, as they are surrounded by states which are hostile to them ...

of course that might just be bollocks ...

 

[Jessiedog]

well umm obviously, it's not exactly the same, but there's some stuff going on that is quite similar.

for example, there was a deliberate policy by the chinese government, over the last fifty years to encourage settlers to go and live in tibet in order to establish greater control, they were given land and jobs there to repay their loyalty for staying. and although tibet has some degree of autonomy nobody really seems to have an idea what their borders really are, and a lot of it seems to have been stealthily taken over by china, while at the same time giving them a government that seems to be under their control, but actually isn't.

Hi frogs,

Most of this is true. The CCP has indeed encouraged development in what always has been, and still is, a very poor region. Immigration has also been encouraged and Han Chinese have moved to Tibet to take advantage of development opportunities. It's possible that half of Tibet's population now comprises non indigenous peeps.

The recently opened railway line into Tibet (highest in the world) will encourage further development and immigration and further the integration (or subsumation,) of Tibet into China.

Tibet does have some degree of autonomy, although the Dalai Lama is arguing for more autonomy and for a clear legal agreement. It is important to note that the Dalai Lama states that Tibet is a part of China and he wishes merely for more autonomy in certain areas and NOT independence. The CCP refuse to talk to him, however, believing that in truth he wants seccession.

I'm not sure why you think Tibets borders are unclear tho'. I'm quite sure they are properly deliniated. There was nothing stealthy about China's suppression in Tibet, the troops just marched in in 1959 and killed anyone who resisted.

China seems to have been doing a lot of this kind of thing, not just on tibet but on the border with mongolia, i saw a truly scary article a while ago, an interview with this settler guy who'd been given a farm on the border to "defend the frontier" should anything happen. the implication was that china might try to use these people and their families as a sort of vanguard so that they could try to expand their borders ...

No.

China has no overt expansionist tendencies (and seems to have a better record in recent years than certain western countries), although undoubtedly an emerging superpower will exert increasing influence and, ultimately, will probably be in a position to do nasty things should it wish.

It's really is rather quaint to think that "settlers" would take up pitchforks on China's borders these days to repel invaders - they wouldn't. What they would do is to try and sell them something - or at least trade something, do some kind of "deal".

I think there are probably two main differences between Palestine and Tibet today:


Firsltly, and most importantly, there is no credible, international voice for an independent Tibet. Even the Dalai Lama speaks for a Tibet as a part of China.

There are no goverments in world that support an independent Tibet.

Tibet is accepted as a part of China by everyone except a few NGO's who have no power to do anything. All governments and most NGO's today limit their comments on Tibet to the contiuning human rights abuses carried out in the province.

Tibet is a part of China and will remain so. Anyone who believes otherwise is either predicting the break-up of China in general (mass social, political and economic collapse, civil war, etc.), which IMO is extremely unlikely, or is unaware of the international, geopolitical acceptance of the current state of affairs.

Palestine, conversely, is a "State in waiting" for most governments around the world.


Secondly, whereas there are undoubtedly human rights abuses in Tibet (as there are across China,) with peeps imprisoned for their religious beliefs and practices (don't get caught with a piccy of the Dalai Lama on your living room wall, the authorities take a rather dim view of that sort of thing), there is no organised "resistance" in Tibet and no serious seccessionist movement. A few monks or nuns go on demo's on occasion, waving pics of the Dalai Lama, and the most persistent of them get jailed - for long periods if they are "ringleaders". But this is a far cry from the level of violence seen in Palestine, with helicopters, rockets, bombs, guns, etc.

Tibet is, largely, a very peaceful place. Palestine is a warzone.



Woof

 

[Jessiedog]

what i am wondering though, is why they have clung onto it ? this is only a suggestion but china has always been vulnerable to invasion due to its size (japan in ww2, the british before that) and maybe they are trying to protect their frontiers by creating some sort of "buffer"?

which is part of the israeli motivation for the occupation of palestine as well, as they are surrounded by states which are hostile to them.

Well,

As I've mentioned, the CCP's suppression in Tibet started in the late 50's and ran into the cultural revolution during the 60's - it's rather done and dusted by now. As much as anything, it was a part of Mao's deflection of the Chinese peeps attention from the tragedy that was the Great Leap Forward - his "agri-revolution" ideas that when implemented, forcibly, resulted in the starvation of some 30 million souls. The whole cultural revolution was a part of Mao's strategy to retain power after the GLF. Peeps were a bit pissed off with him at the time, so he ripped tens of millions of kids out of the schools and sent them rampaging across the coutry for a decade, torturing, killing, burning, destroying.

And where better a place to start than Tibet? A backward, feudal, rural province where a wealthy, religious elite ruled over an impoverished peasantry. A perfect focal point for the hoards of young, idealogically-brainwashed, out of control, thugs.

Later, of course, the cultural revolution spread throughout the country.

It was China's darkest time.


Anyway, that was all a while ago now, and just as there's no chance that ANY country will voluntarily give up territory today, it is unthinkable for China to let go of any of its territory, especially when nobody that matters is suggesting that it should. On the contrary, China is soooooooooo sensitive on this issue (national sovreignty,) for perhaps two main reasons:

Firstly, as you rightly point out, China has a sorry history of invasion by various western powers, not to mention the suffering meted out by the Japanese during years of occupation. This in itself is enough to make China tetchy on the subject (let's not forget that China still wants Taiwan back too).

Tibet is not a "buffer zone" for China. The DPRK is a buffer zone, Nepal is a buffer zone, Tibet is a part of China.


Secondly, nationalism in and of itself, is the perfect tool to help keep the Chinese people distracted from the more pressing "real" problems the coutry faces internally. Ask any Chinese what the most important political issues the country faces and you'll probably get a lecture about the "resumption of sovreignty" of Taiwan and the need for more "sincere expressions of remorse" from the Japanese government regarding the atrocities perpetrated in China during the 1930's and 40's.

Why on earth would China not "hold on" to Tibet?




Oh, and another distinction between the two places. Tibet's economy - as a part of China's - is enjoying unprecedented and sustained economic growth and development and has been for twenty years. The prospects for further development are very bright and the new railway will further boost peoples livelyhoods in the province.

Palestine's economy has been battered into oblivion.


All in all, I feel that a comparison of Tibet and Palestine today leads to the conclusion that their differences far outweigh any similarities.



Woof

 

[s.norbury]

The capitalist west would be occupying both Palestine and Tibet if the Chinese hadn't invaded the latter. Therefore the only similarity is what could have happened.

 

[scalyboy]

I've revived this thread in order to (hopefully) discuss one or two points that arose in the Gaza thread (but didn't want to continue it there because of potential thread derail).

I made a suggestion that what the PRC have been doing in Tibet over the past 64 years is comparable to Israel's action against the Palestinians; in reply, ViolentPanda said this: Gaza under attack yet again.

VP, I don't know much about the Uighers (sp.?) or other minorities in China; what I was thinking of specifically was the Tibetans' situation, as it seems to me that here we have a distinct ethnic group, with a country of its own (admittedly, this is disputed by China who say that historically Tibet has been a province of China), and a distinct cultural identity which is being deliberately eroded: partly by suppression of Buddhism (still continuing from the Cultural revolution mass destruction of temples), and partly by a mass settler campaign of Han and Hui Chinese people. Whilst there is some form of Tibetan middle class (presumably collaborators), I understand there to be a two-tier health care system with Tibetans being the worse off.

What's your (or others') view of the situation?

 

[hash tag]

China has Illegaly occupied Tibet and continues to supress of some of the most peaceful people on earth, so much so, that there only means of expression is self immolation. It also snatched back Hong Kong ASAP, is trying to get it's hands on Taiwan, is in continued debate about some islands with Japan. Lets not forget many British businesses it is buying up. AND THEN what about what it is doing in Africa? OK, Africa has may problems ( as does the world as a whole ) which is perhaps why China sees an opening to be quietly exploited. It's building towns, railways Etc. in an attempt to exploit it for it's own ends and maybe even colonise it in some way. China, unsurprisingly, overlooks many of the human rights issues that are rife in Africa. Hmmmm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7086777.stm#map

http://www.brookings.edu/research/reports/2013/04/china-africa-us-competition-diplomacy-sun

 

[bmd]

Nothing to add to this thread other than,

woof.

 

[quiquaquo]

What's your (or others') view of the situation?

Let's concentrate on Palestine right now.

 

[frogwoman]

Let's concentrate on Palestine right now.

indeed, this thread is from 8 years ago, I cant even remember starting it

 

[hash tag]

Sorry. There are other threads on Palestine already!

 

[scalyboy]

Let's concentrate on Palestine right now.

I bumped this thread because you objected to my discussing Tibet on the Gaza thread. Now you are saying let's concentrate on Palestine on this thread as well?
If you don't think the two are comparable, then please explain why you believe that to be so.