Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/non_aviation/read.main/2471634/

Topic: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: zrs70
Posted 2012-11-23 17:06:30 and read 4189 times.

There is so much emotion on both sides of this conflict. And there are many posts among multiple threads that try to put forward facts, but they fall short. So I would like to pose questions for those who are truly familiar with history to share wisdom:

1) Who controlled the land in what is now Israel 70 years ago, 100 years ago, 200 years ago?

2) What did the land look like 100 years ago?

3) How much of the land was purchased, how much was granted, how much was a result of war?

4) Why did the surrounding nations wage war against Israel was declared a nation? What about the subsequent wars?

5) What happened to the Jews in Yemen, Iraq, and other Arab nations? Weren't there historically large numbers?

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: damirc
Posted 2012-11-23 17:20:55 and read 4181 times.

Considering all of us will answer with some bias, I will skip answering and advise getting a few good history books from both sides of the conflict and make your own picture.

The UN is also a good source (at least for historic reference, land area ownership data etc.). Other than that you'll run into a problem - depending on what agenda a source pushes you'll get at least two very different views. It is your call whom to believe, but don't forget that neither side will be entirely truthful, and the truth usually lies somewhere in between both viewpoints.

D.

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: PanHAM
Posted 2012-11-24 00:17:05 and read 4129 times.

These questions don't lead anywhere.

You might as well ask the same questions relating to the USA or Canada or Australia.

Or Europe, where bloody wars have been fought over who owned what.

Reality is that we live in the 21st century, with global communication readily available to anyone, with news travelling within seconds and every point in the world reachable from any point in the world more or less within 48 hours.

The real problem in this communicatove world is, that education has yet not reached all people, religious bias is still keeping some masses dumb and that includes quran schools as well as the creation theory taught in some US areas.

The Middle east seems to be a long way from real democracy, which is not only the ability to vote but also to control those who have been voted into office. The most recent developments in Egypt say more about that than words could say.

Europe and the western world serves as a role model for a peaceful existance, at least the past 60 odd years do. May be that is why some religions fight that role model so fiercely.

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: Darksnowynight
Posted 2012-11-24 03:04:50 and read 4086 times.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 2):

Indeed. A house is the people in it. Yes, the Jews have as much ancestral claim as anyone else, but that's not relevant. At all. If we were to return every bit of land to the "rightful owners", this place would be a mess, and post haste. Especially the United States. The best course of action is to support the party most likely to safeguard the rights and quality of life for the most people involved. This is tricky here because though the answer is obviously Israel, anything beyond their own borders becomes a "gray" area (to say the least) awful damned fast.

Quoting zrs70 (Thread starter):
4) Why did the surrounding nations wage war against Israel was declared a nation? What about the subsequent wars?

All war can be boiled down to Armed Robbery. We certainly know a thing or three about that in the US, but it isn't limited to us. In this case, there's a good deal more partisanship than people realize. The best possible outcome, where the rest of the world is concerned, is to designate a winner, and back that party. There's no virtue otherwise anyway.

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: Quokkas
Posted 2012-11-24 18:14:54 and read 4017 times.

Gosh, to give a detailed and comprehensive response to your questions would require a book rather than a few lines in an internet forum. Anything else will inevitably "fall short".

But some facts remain facts whatever spin people will choose to put on them. Incontrovertible facts are that:
Palestine was inhabited before European Jewish immigration commenced in the nineteenth century;
it was not all barren land, covered with mosquitoes and swamps as I have read in some forums.;
there may not have been an independent State called Palestine but the people who lived there regarded the land as their home; and
when Britain created Transjordan, Palestinians asked whether it was not their homeland replied, "it belongs to the Bedouin on the other side of the river."

Over the years the political dominance of the area may have changed but people lived there, they built towns and villages, tilled the soil, produced items for trade, married, had children, went to the mosque, the synagogue or church. At various times it has been ruled by Egyptian Mamluks, Ottoman Pashas and became British under the Sykes-Picot agreement and a mandate granted by the League of Imperialist Bandits (as Lenin liked to call the League of Nations). The people who actually lived there had no say in the matter.

Land ownership varied too. In some areas it was owned by absentee landowners though a typical ownership was communal village ownership with regular redistribution (masha'a) with co-cultivation partnerships. This system was problematic both for immigrants who wished to purchase land and later for the British. Both the Ottomans and British sought to change land ownership into individual parcels in order to facilitate the resolution of disputes, ease transactions in land and, importantly for any administration, make simpler the raising of taxes.

One effect of these changes was to produce a class of landless labourers. Initially this wasn't too much of a problem. People could still work the land for others but Jewish colonists wished to work the land themselves. This lead to resentment as the former tillers of the soil now had no means of supporting themselves, although many moved to the cities where new industries provided some jobs.

It is an enduring myth that everything was barren until migrants from Europe made the desert bloom. Far from all of Palestine being a desert and wasteland, Palestine produced crops both for local consumption and for export. In the eighteenth century, oranges were finding their way to Europe from Jaffa. Olives, dates and cereal crops were also grown. But there were areas unsuitable for cultivation and in those areas grazing stock were herded.

What were the patterns of ownership in 1947? Again it varied. In some areas Jewish and non-Jewish ownership were about even. In others there was a majority of Jewish ownership or a majority of non-Jewish ownership. Depending on the nature of the soil and access to water, some areas were under irrigation or non-arable and examples can be found under the various ownership patterns.

A detailed breakdown of ownership patterns is beyond the scope of a reply in a forum, but it is not true to say that the majority of the land in Palestine was purchased by immigrants before 1947, although it true to say that land owned by immigrant Jews had been purchased. It is true to say that since 1948 large areas of land were ethnically cleansed and that the people living on that land were not compensated.

[Edited 2012-11-24 18:31:58]

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: PHX787
Posted 2012-11-24 19:06:51 and read 4003 times.

This is going to lead to a large-scale flamefest.

Quoting zrs70 (Thread starter):
1) Who controlled the land in what is now Israel 70 years ago, 100 years ago, 200 years ago?

I believe 70 and 100 years ago it was the british Mandate of Palestine. No "religion" controlled the area; as it was under British Rule.

Between the 200 years ago and the 100 years, it was under Ottoman control.

Quoting zrs70 (Thread starter):
2) What did the land look like 100 years ago?

Large ottoman empire control.

Quoting zrs70 (Thread starter):
3) How much of the land was purchased, how much was granted, how much was a result of war?

I'm pretty sure after both the first and second wars, the UN divided the land that was controlled by the Germans, Italians, and the old Ottoman empire (now Turkey) and the mandate set up Israel as a safe-haven for the Jews, apparently.

Quoting zrs70 (Thread starter):
5) What happened to the Jews in Yemen, Iraq, and other Arab nations? Weren't there historically large numbers?

Expelled after the Arab-Israeli conflict. In Iran after the Ayatollah and in Saudi Arabia they were already being expelled (expelled further under the Ayatollah, I should add). Iraq, well I'm not sure.

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: Pu
Posted 2012-11-25 07:52:29 and read 3950 times.

One thing that people often forget is that more or less ALL the national boundaries in the Middle East are contrived by outsiders, largely European colonial mapmakers - endorsed and given validity later by the UN and the two superpowers in the post WW2 world.

I point this out because often Israel is held up as the oddity imposed on the region from outside, but actually statehood for the KSA, the Gulf States, Jordan, Iraq etc... was an invention of the UK. So I question how some voices can attack Israel's historical legitimacy when their own is equally recent and equally resulting from the whims of European politics.

With that said, clearly Europe's transfer of "the Jewish problem" onto predominately Muslim lands was a collosal mistake, or at best was handled in a collosally bad way.


Pu

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: moo
Posted 2012-11-25 08:02:12 and read 3945 times.

Quoting Pu (Reply 6):

You have a valid point, but there is something to remember - Israel is the only one created with the explicit influx of external persons in mind.

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: Pu
Posted 2012-11-25 08:21:13 and read 3936 times.

Quoting moo (Reply 7):
You have a valid point, but there is something to remember - Israel is the only one created with the explicit influx of external persons in mind.

Sure, but in that sense its not that different from Britain's colonial ambitions in North America & Australia-New Zealand, or Spain's colonisation of South America.

The native people were joined by Europeans who were better armed, wealthier etc.... and proceeded to draw map lines, make new countries and so forth.

No one question's Brazilian, Canadian or Australian legitimacy even though probably more natives were wiped out than when Israel took over from the Palestinians.


Pu

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: Revelation
Posted 2012-11-25 09:02:11 and read 3919 times.

Quoting zrs70 (Thread starter):
Who controlled the land in what is now Israel 70 years ago, 100 years ago, 200 years ago?

I presume by 'controlled' you mean 'ruled' or 'governed', right?

The main transitions over that time frame happened after WWI and WWII.

Turkey had been the ruling power before that period, but in WWI the Turks joined the German/Austo-Hungarian side, then the British attacked and occupied Palestine.

After WWI, the British were given the 'Mandate' to rule Palestine.

Then the real critical transition after WWII happened.

A description of this critical time from Wiki's Israel page:

Quote:

On 15 May 1947, the General Assembly of the newly formed United Nations resolved that a committee, United Nations Special Committee on Palestine (UNSCOP), be created "to prepare for consideration at the next regular session of the Assembly a report on the question of Palestine".[69] In the Report of the Committee dated 3 September 1947 to the UN General Assembly,[70] the majority of the Committee in Chapter VI proposed a plan to replace the British Mandate with "an independent Arab State, an independent Jewish State, and the City of Jerusalem..., the last to be under an International Trusteeship System".[71] On 29 November 1947, the General Assembly adopted a resolution recommending the adoption and implementation of the Plan of Partition with Economic Union as Resolution 181 (II).[72] The Plan attached to the resolution was essentially that proposed by the majority of the Committee in the Report of 3 September 1947.

The Jewish Agency, which was the recognized representative of the Jewish community, accepted the plan, but the Arab League and Arab Higher Committee of Palestine rejected it.[73] On 1 December 1947, the Arab Higher Committee proclaimed a three-day strike, and Arab bands began attacking Jewish targets.[74] The Jews were initially on the defensive as civil war broke out, but gradually moved onto the offensive.[75] The Palestinian Arab economy collapsed and 250,000 Palestinian-Arabs fled or were expelled.[76]

On 14 May 1948, the day before the expiration of the British Mandate, David Ben-Gurion, the head of the Jewish Agency, declared "the establishment of a Jewish state in Eretz-Israel, to be known as the State of Israel".[77][78] The only reference in the text of the Declaration to the borders of the new state is the use of the term, Eretz-Israel.[79][citation needed]

The following day, the armies of four Arab countries—Egypt, Syria, Transjordan and Iraq—entered what had been British Mandate Palestine, launching the 1948 Arab–Israeli War;[80][81] Saudi Arabia sent a military contingent to operate under Egyptian command; Yemen declared war but did not take military action.[82] In a cablegram of the same day from the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States to the UN Secretary-General, the Arab states gave a justification for this "intervention". After a year of fighting, a ceasefire was declared and temporary borders, known as the Green Line, were established.[83] Jordan annexed what became known as the West Bank and East Jerusalem, and Egypt took control of the Gaza Strip. The United Nations estimated that more than 700,000 Palestinians were expelled or fled during the conflict from what would become Israel.[84]

Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel

I'm sure others will point out where this narrative is flawed.

One thing to get from this narrative is that the Arabs could have had a much more favorable partition of the Palestine Mandate if they had accepted the UNSCOP treaty, but chose to invade instead, presumably thinking that they would end up with control of all of Palestine. In fact after the invasion they ended up with just Gaza (Egypt) and the West Bank (Jordan), and even those would be lost in the '67 war. The invasion allowed Isreal to cast the refugee problem as one the Arabs caused and thus one the Arabs had to solve.

Some more reading of interest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lausanne_Conference,_1949

Quoting Pu (Reply 6):
One thing that people often forget is that more or less ALL the national boundaries in the Middle East are contrived by outsiders, largely European colonial mapmakers - endorsed and given validity later by the UN and the two superpowers in the post WW2 world.

I point this out because often Israel is held up as the oddity imposed on the region from outside, but actually statehood for the KSA, the Gulf States, Jordan, Iraq etc... was an invention of the UK. So I question how some voices can attack Israel's historical legitimacy when their own is equally recent and equally resulting from the whims of European politics.

Indeed, we've seen this vividly displayed during and after the regretable US invasion of Iraq.

Iraq was an artificial conglomeration of Kurd, Shia and Suni.

During the lawless period, the groups largely re-aligned the area along these sectarian lines.

Something to be learned from this, but I'm not sure exactly what it is.

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: n229nw
Posted 2012-11-25 11:39:17 and read 3890 times.

Hi Zrs, this is not a personal attack on you, but a commentary on your arguing style here that I believe is rather problematic. I understand you are a Rabbi and have your own interest in this situation, but rather than engage in any of the threads, you have a tendency to make short posts that simply ask "why is everyone so biased against Israel?" And then you never try to answer or defend any of your own positions.

Consider the questions you ask in this thread. You don't actually try to make any arguments about them, instead presuming that if people "just learn the truth" by thinking about the questions, they will see the Israeli side. Yet each little aspect is extremely complicated even by itself, and usually there are many wrongs and many understandably human yet unproductive reactions compounded over many years by both sides.

Just take this one:

Quoting zrs70 (Thread starter):
3) How much of the land was purchased, how much was granted, how much was a result of war?

In fact, let's just tale one part of this one question: the land purchasing. So: the great majority of Jewish land prior to the 1948 partition plan was legally purchased by Jewish settlers, yes. And yes, much (though certainly not all) was some of the worse and less arable land available. However, just because it wasn't primarily taken by force doesn't mean the situation was fair. They didn't just purchase the land, they purchased it mainly from bulk and largely absentee Ottoman landlords, and they purchased it with stated intent to outnumber the local population and then start their own country on that basis.

So let's use a loose analogy. Let's say that most of the land in California was owned by Japanese multinational corporations and rented to American tenants, or in many cases abandoned warehouses or swampland. Let's say that large numbers of Mexicans bought up that land for a good price, better than Americans could afford, and started developing it. The Japanese-owned countries wouldn't care. The white Americans would object because in some cases they were immediately being displaced, but would probably mind for xenophobic reasons even when it was abandoned warehouse land that would be developed by the purchasing Mexicans. That might be their problem to suck up. But let's add that last layer and say that all the Mexicans buying the land also claimed they were going to establish critical mass and then turn California into a new country improved and governed by and for them, because their ancestors had been on the land before the whites now living there. Don't you think that would lead to armed conflict?

These aren't simple issues. I'm Jewish, have family in Israel, yet I still find it easier to see the Palestinian side of the issues when one goes back to the critical moments in the first half of the century. At the same time, I see the reasons why Zionism formed, both before and after the Holocaust. But it doesn't mean that it was fair to the Arabs in the area. (Edward Said's famous essay "Zionism from the Standpoint of its Victims" is an eye-opener whether or not you agree with every aspect of it.) Israel clearly has established the right to exist now that it has been there for generations. But as I see it, Israel has to behave and negotiate with an understanding that its presence was not a God-given right from the start at the expense of the Arabs.

I hope you will come back to your thread and actually present some of the arguments you want to make.

[Edited 2012-11-25 12:27:44]

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: Revelation
Posted 2012-11-25 13:15:51 and read 3856 times.

Quoting n229nw (Reply 10):
These aren't simple issues. I'm Jewish, have family in Israel, yet I still find it easier to see the Palestinian side of the issues when one goes back to the critical moments in the first half of the century.

Interesting. As above, I've posted what seems to be Israel's main line of reasoning, that the Arabs could have had peace in 1948 but they chose to invade, they are the ones who created the refugee problem, and they should be the ones to settle it. What do you think is the flaw in this line of reasoning?

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: par13del
Posted 2012-11-25 13:38:56 and read 3844 times.

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 4):
Palestine was inhabited before European Jewish immigration commenced in the nineteenth century;

The OP will need to look up history books on both sides to get a better picture, I posted the above quote because one might read it and assume that there were no Jews living alongside Palentinains in the land prior to the end of WWII and the European Jewish migration.

If history is to play any role in resolving this crisis it will be in the period before WWII when there was relative peace between the inhabitants of the land, note I said relative.

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: caliatenza
Posted 2012-11-25 17:55:45 and read 3787 times.

Quoting n229nw (Reply 10):
These aren't simple issues. I'm Jewish, have family in Israel, yet I still find it easier to see the Palestinian side of the issues when one goes back to the critical moments in the first half of the century. At the same time, I see the reasons why Zionism formed, both before and after the Holocaust. But it doesn't mean that it was fair to the Arabs in the area. (Edward Said's famous essay "Zionism from the Standpoint of its Victims" is an eye-opener whether or not you agree with every aspect of it.) Israel clearly has established the right to exist now that it has been there for generations. But as I see it, Israel has to behave and negotiate with an understanding that its presence was not a God-given right from the start at the expense of the Arabs.

its good to actually here from someone there. Thing is, do you think the current Israeli government will end up making peace? Or is this cycle going to just continue forever??

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: n229nw
Posted 2012-11-25 18:23:07 and read 3779 times.

Quoting caliatenza (Reply 13):
its good to actually here from someone there.

Just to clarify. I am not there. I have family members there.

Quoting caliatenza (Reply 13):
do you think the current Israeli government will end up making peace?

  

Perhaps if they are dragged into it kicking and screaming. Netanyahu is horrible. But the sad thing right now is that the whole government is so beholden to the pressure of the settler movement, and even the opposition center-left has become so cynical that it will take some kind of a a major shake-up to open up possibilities. I think outside pressure is very important here.

[Edited 2012-11-25 18:49:12]

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: einsteinboricua
Posted 2012-11-25 18:25:42 and read 3779 times.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 9):
One thing to get from this narrative is that the Arabs could have had a much more favorable partition of the Palestine Mandate if they had accepted the UNSCOP treaty, but chose to invade instead, presumably thinking that they would end up with control of all of Palestine.

Well, there's one thing many think was the fault of the Arabs: the rejection of the partition. However, you have to see the reasons why they chose to reject it.

Let's use a pizza as an example. Suppose that you want pepperoni and a friend wants sausage. The logical thing is to divide it in half: one half pepperoni, one half sausage. But let's say that you eat more than your friend (or that you're paying for it). Common courtesy would dictate that the person paying gets to decide how much he wants from the pizza. But let's say the two of you start bickering because you think you should get a 75/25 split while the other thinks a 50/50 split is reasonable. Let's say that the clerk suggests you split it 60/40 and one of you agrees with the clerk but the other is not happy with it. Does it mean that you should not eat pizza at all?

Let's use another example. Suppose I write legislation and you agree most of it. We debate it over and over and when it comes up to a vote on the floor it's exactly the same as it was when I wrote it, and again you agree with everything except those parts. Assuming you can't abstain from voting, do you vote for it or against it?

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: Revelation
Posted 2012-11-25 19:54:02 and read 3753 times.

Quoting einsteinboricua (Reply 15):
Let's say that the clerk suggests you split it 60/40 and one of you agrees with the clerk but the other is not happy with it. Does it mean that you should not eat pizza at all?

No, but to further the analogy, it seems one person tried to run off with the entire pizza, the other person caught them and after a long fight that they won they took back 80% of the pizza instead of 60%.

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: Quokkas
Posted 2012-11-25 20:47:57 and read 3740 times.

Quoting par13del (Reply 12):
I posted the above quote because one might read it and assume that there were no Jews living alongside Palestinians

It would be a pity if they did take that view. People who happened to be Jewish have lived there from "time immemorial", but it was my intention to highlight the fact that the Jewish population only began to grow significantly following immigration from Europe. Prior to that, as I wrote, the inhabitants "went to the mosque, the synagogue or church."

Quoting n229nw (Reply 10):
and they purchased it with stated intent to outnumber the local population and then start their own country on that basis.

And in a way, this is one of the ironies. While there were those who supported the idea of a, for want of a better word, planter population settled on farms, either run individually or through kibbutzim, the majority of the migrants were urbanised Jews. Through the writings of some authors and films like "Fiddler on the Roof", some people have a romantic notion of life in the shtetl as being small communities. Yet by 1897 more than half of Jews living in the Tsarist Empire was living in major cities and this was a growing trend. Have a look at census figures for Poland in 1921 and 1931 (figures do not round to 100% as not all trades are listed and there was some unemployment.)
Changes in Areas of Economic Activity 1921-1931
Economic Activity19211931
Farmers/ Peasants4.9%4.6%
Commerce41.3%36.6%
Manufacturing36.7%42.2%
Transport4.5%3.4%
Professions4.2%6.3%

This shows a trend of increasing urbanisation. The situation in Austria, Hungary and Germany shows a similar high urbanisation.

So while the pioneers may have had a vision of a landed population, many of the migrants were unsuited for such a role and unwilling to adapt. Some (a minority)looked down on the original Jewish population, became disillusioned and returned to Europe or went to the Americas. Those that stayed became established in cities. Today, the term settler is used to describe those who would evict Palestinians from their homes. But in many instances the aim is not to establish a farm but to develop the land for housing. Today Israel is about 92% urban.

[Edited 2012-11-25 20:49:38]

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: DocLightning
Posted 2012-11-25 22:41:25 and read 3702 times.

Quoting Pu (Reply 6):

One thing that people often forget is that more or less ALL the national boundaries in the Middle East are contrived by outsiders,

This is very true. It is also very true for most of Africa. This is partly why so many of these countries are such disasters.

Consider Nigeria. They took the Igbo, Hausa, and Yoruba and shoved them together into one country. The result? Infighting.

Consider Iraq. Kurds, Shiites, and Sunnis. The result? Well...Iraq.

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: zrs70
Posted 2012-11-25 23:04:48 and read 3696 times.

Quoting n229nw (Reply 10):
Hi Zrs, this is not a personal attack on you, but a commentary on your arguing style here that I believe is rather problematic. I understand you are a Rabbi and have your own interest in this situation, but rather than engage in any of the threads, you have a tendency to make short posts that simply ask "why is everyone so biased against Israel?" And then you never try to answer or defend any of your own positions.

Point well taken about my posting! Guilty as charged... Not really a fare or straight forward way for me to post.

That said - I do believe there are many people whose posts appear authoritative on Middle East issues though they know little about the facts. (Mind you - I am not an expert on the Middle East either. Thus I seek knowledge from as many people as possible).

I will say this: While it is factual that the land was never under political control of the Palestinians, there is no question that the people had emotional and historical ties.

I'll add the following: Israel certainly has inherited a very difficult situation with no simply solution. Israel won a war and with it land with indigenous people. Has Israel made wrong moves along the way? Absolutely. But the surrounding nations have done little to noting to help the Palestinians. (Why hasn't Jordan or Egypt truly stepped in to help?)

I want peace more than anything in the region. I think Israel needs to ask the tough questions. It's next to impossible to negotiate with many of the nations. But over the course of the last 60 years, just about every time Israel has given back land, they've been attacked.

Anyway, I'll be more engaged in my posts moving forward!

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: DeltaMD90
Posted 2012-11-26 09:45:46 and read 3637 times.

Quoting zrs70 (Reply 19):
Has Israel made wrong moves along the way? Absolutely. But

        

THIS is what I think is a major problem in this situation. It is simple human nature: when my side does something wrong, we say "yes, we've made mistakes, we're not perfect. But ___________." And you are right...

BUT

to a Palestinian, "sorry, we screwed up, we aren't perfect, no one is" doesn't cut it!

Instead of Israel saying "yes, maybe we created too many settlements, we're sorry, we'll stop," they need to actually make an effort to correct their wrongs.

And I know this isn't one sided. What the Palestinians often do is unwise and often barbaric. But they do have legitimate gripes even if they go about them the wrong way.

I don't know you too well, but I'm going to go off on a hunch--I had this same problem. I used to think (and I legitimately tried) to see a problem from an opposing viewpoint, but I never really did it justice. I had my underlying bias that always won out. No, in order to see the other side's view, you need to adopt their bias and weigh their needs more heavily than your side's. You need to really become a pissed off Palestinian and look at it through any bias they might have.

After you see it that way, you may disagree, but at least you can see what the other side is really thinking. At the very least, you can know how to debate with them and have a better idea of what a compromise at me, instead of rattling off old arguments that obviously don't work (like oh, you tried to invade us instead of wanting peace decades ago)

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: us330
Posted 2012-11-26 10:28:25 and read 3626 times.

Quoting Pu (Reply 6):
I point this out because often Israel is held up as the oddity imposed on the region from outside, but actually statehood for the KSA, the Gulf States, Jordan, Iraq etc... was an invention of the UK.

Hey, let's not forget the French. The treaty was called Sykes-Picot, not just Sykes!

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: KiwiRob
Posted 2012-11-26 10:59:34 and read 3613 times.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 11):
that the Arabs could have had peace in 1948 but they chose to invade

Why say invade, I'd say fight back to reclaim what was theirs, the simple fact is the State of Israel should nave have been created. It's one of the biggest blunders the world has ever made.

Since most of the jews who immigrated there were European realistically a jewish state should have been carved out of Germany (and perhaps Poland) post WWII, that would have been a far superior solution and I doubt we would have today's issues.

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: einsteinboricua
Posted 2012-11-26 12:37:28 and read 3580 times.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 22):
Since most of the jews who immigrated there were European realistically a jewish state should have been carved out of Germany (and perhaps Poland) post WWII, that would have been a far superior solution and I doubt we would have today's issues.

But...Jerusalem is a holy site so that's why they picked the place. Of course, they should've rewritten the books so that Munich were the holy city.

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: Revelation
Posted 2012-11-26 19:29:56 and read 3532 times.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 22):

Why say invade, I'd say fight back to reclaim what was theirs, the simple fact is the State of Israel should nave have been created. It's one of the biggest blunders the world has ever made.

Is it time to ask an Aborigine what s/he thinks of New Zealand?

Please don't tell me "we're much more civilized now", we both know that's false or we wouldn't be having this thread.

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: TheCommodore
Posted 2012-11-26 19:48:44 and read 3561 times.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 24):
Is it time to ask an Aborigine what s/he thinks of New Zealand?

Just for your Info....


You mean Maori, they are the original inhabitants of New Zealand.

Aborigines are from Australia.

Both countries now have extensive agreements with the respective Governments, dealing with everything from compensation for land taken, to water rights, to fishing in exclusive zones.

I haven't heard of any such arrangements between the Israelis and the Palestinians, but I stand corrected if the are.

http://www.waitangi-tribunal.govt.nz/treaty/

http://australia.gov.au/about-austra...ia/australian-story/reconciliation

[Edited 2012-11-26 19:54:40]

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: DeltaMD90
Posted 2012-11-26 20:29:46 and read 3548 times.

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 25):

He does have a point though. Blunder or not, Israel was created about 65 years ago. Most of the original settlers aren't alive now. Nor are most of the displaced Palestinians. It's a mess, but I find it unreasonable to have either side simply move away.

Now, reading your post, it isn't clear that you advocated that, I was just mentioning the worst case scenario. I don't pretend to know all your thoughts. An agreement has to be made by both parties, and no one side can just simply disappear. Some of the Palestinians would love to see all the Israelis leave, and I won't deny some Israelis feel the same about the Palestinians, but not only is any removal unfair, it just isn't going to happen, so we shouldn't even waste our breath debating it IMO

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: TheCommodore
Posted 2012-11-26 21:02:38 and read 3560 times.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 26):
Israel was created about 65 years ago.

And Australia 1788 / New Zealand 1769, so around 200+ years ago, give or take.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 26):
Most of the original settlers aren't alive now. Nor are most of the displaced Palestinians. It's a mess, but I find it unreasonable to have either side simply move away.

Yes, the same can be said about the Aboriginals and the Maoris.

NZ is actually a shinning light, when it comes to early treaty's etc, with "original" owners of lands/countries.It is by no means 100% satisfactory to all NZ Maoris, or Pakeha (whiteman), but it has certainly give them much more leverage, than the Aboriginals enjoy, when "negotiating" with the Government of issues

[Edited 2012-11-26 21:12:26]

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: KiwiRob
Posted 2012-11-26 23:33:22 and read 3542 times.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 24):

Is it time to ask an Aborigine what s/he thinks of New Zealand?

Funny you should say Abo, my great great grandmother was an Abo, so that makes me about 1/16th, as an Abo from NZ I'm pretty happy with my lot.

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: Revelation
Posted 2012-11-27 05:11:43 and read 3509 times.

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 25):
You mean Maori, they are the original inhabitants of New Zealand.

Thanks for the correction.

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 25):
Both countries now have extensive agreements with the respective Governments, dealing with everything from compensation for land taken, to water rights, to fishing in exclusive zones.

I haven't heard of any such arrangements between the Israelis and the Palestinians, but I stand corrected if the are.

Does the UNSCOP treaty mentioned above qualify?

I guess we'll never know what the region would look like if it had been honored.

Quoting TheCommodore (Reply 27):

NZ is actually a shinning light, when it comes to early treaty's etc, with "original" owners of lands/countries.It is by no means 100% satisfactory to all NZ Maoris, or Pakeha (whiteman), but it has certainly give them much more leverage, than the Aboriginals enjoy, when "negotiating" with the Government of issues

Indeed it seems to be a much better arrangement than native people have elsewhere, including here in the US.

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: KiwiRob
Posted 2012-11-27 06:40:01 and read 3494 times.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 29):
including here in the US.

I'm pretty sure if you asked some of the natives in NZ they would love to have some of the privilages that US natives have, i.e. being able to open casinos and the like.

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: Revelation
Posted 2012-11-27 16:43:23 and read 3440 times.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 30):
I'm pretty sure if you asked some of the natives in NZ they would love to have some of the privilages that US natives have, i.e. being able to open casinos and the like.

I suppose, but as you said, in the US those casinos are a privilege as opposed to a right, and they only benefit members of the particular tribe that has managed to negotiate such privilege, which is only granted when the state deems their slice of the take to be acceptable. My understanding from the ones in Connecticut is that a person has to prove 1/16th or more blood line to be considered a member of the tribe. For those who can't meet that standard or aren't in a tribe that has been able to negotiate the privilege, the casino is providing no value. All it is doing is enriching a select group of Native Americans and the State in which their casino is built.

Needless to say the number of Native Americans who benefit is a small fraction of the total, and on average the Native American population suffers a disproportionately high rate of alcoholism, unemployment and poverty. I hope the NZ natives are doing better.

Native is an interesting word. Native Americans really aren't native, they came here from Siberia, as far as science can tell. Some take to calling themselves Original Settlers, but that means they too are settlers, just like settlers that came from other places, they just happened to get there first, which may or may not be significant depending on your point of view. As far as science can tell, we all came from a small region of East Africa, so we probably should all be arguing over that, as opposed to, let's say, Jerusalem.

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: n229nw
Posted 2012-11-27 20:10:25 and read 3411 times.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 11):

Interesting. As above, I've posted what seems to be Israel's main line of reasoning, that the Arabs could have had peace in 1948 but they chose to invade, they are the ones who created the refugee problem, and they should be the ones to settle it. What do you think is the flaw in this line of reasoning?

I think that if I put myself in the shoes of the Arabs who were there at the time, and who were being told, "hey, there were a few of us here before on the land where you have been a majority, but now we have streamed in in numbers and we are starting our own new country on this land--but, oh, you can have some of it," I can understand why they reacted as they did.

Quoting zrs70 (Reply 19):

Anyway, I'll be more engaged in my posts moving forward!

Thanks for coming back!

Quoting zrs70 (Reply 19):

That said - I do believe there are many people whose posts appear authoritative on Middle East issues though they know little about the facts.

Sure but I think that is very true of both sides.

Quoting zrs70 (Reply 19):

I'll add the following: Israel certainly has inherited a very difficult situation with no simply solution. Israel won a war and with it land with indigenous people. Has Israel made wrong moves along the way?

There are several things to keep in mind I think:

In a normal acquisition of territory in a war, the population of the new territory becomes citizens of the victor state, and if that state presents itself as a democracy, they have full rights, including voting etc. There is an inherent problem in the idea of Israel in that in order to be a "Jewish State," it can actually operate as a "democracy" only if the population balance is maintained with a (healthy) Jewish majority. If Israel wanted to continue operating in this paradigm, then land acquisitions, even if won in a defensive war (and 1967 isn't actually as simple as being a defensive war from the Israeli side, but let's not even add that to the argument), from the start would have posed a very difficult issue, for they could only result in either occupation without granting citizenship rights ot the population, or in annexation by displacement (i.e. ethnic cleansing).

Now, I believe that many people in Israel in 1967 understood the taking of the expanded territory only as a very temporary bargaining chip. However, there were already various plans by proponents of the greater Israel movement to take some or all of the acquired land by population displacement, and that is where things have gotten really rough, because those proponents soon gained the upper hand and created a situation where Israel has more and more vested in the settled areas. (There are now over half a million settlers in East Jerusalem and the West Bank.) So, you effectively have a situation in which Israel occupied rather than annexing a territory, then de facto annexed part of it by deliberate displacement of the ethnic population of that land, who were never granted citizenship rights, and who face collective punishment and humiliation constantly rather than a fair justice system.

This situation will not and has not marginalized and defang the extremist Arab groups, it has swelled and continues to swell their ranks. It is basic psychology. Which is sad, because the Arab position, realistically, has changed. In a sense, the bargaining chip worked: while most Arabs (again, understandably, I think) rejected outright the creation of Israel at the time it was made, nowadays a majority wants to accept Israel--but not the continuing land grabs.

Quoting zrs70 (Reply 19):
But the surrounding nations have done little to noting to help the Palestinians. (Why hasn't Jordan or Egypt truly stepped in to help?)

That's absolutely true. From a human rights standpoint, the treatment of the Palestinians by Jordan (and Egypt) has been shameful. Those countries have preferred to prioritize the politics of the region over the lives of the refugees. That said, if Israel wants to take the high moral ground and claim to be seeking peace and serving as a beacon of democracy in the region, they will need to bite the bullet and stop thinking in the same box in which they are they only victims, while the settler movement continues to irreversibly alter the situation on the ground. One way to start would be to respond to the standing Arab peace initiative, in which, many years ago, the entire Arab league agreed to recognize Israel and normalize relations with the country if the occupied territories are relinquished and some (most likely nominal) compensation is offered to satisfy the "right to return" issue.

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: NAV20
Posted 2012-11-27 21:10:18 and read 3409 times.

Quoting zrs70 (Reply 19):
I want peace more than anything in the region. I think Israel needs to ask the tough questions. It's next to impossible to negotiate with many of the nations.

zrs70, the very first 'tough question' is surely 'when is Israel going to put a stop to massive, un-controlled inward migration'? The underlying cause of all the conflict is that the place is hopelessly over-crowded, and becoming more so every year.

Lest anyone gets the impression that I'm taking any sort of 'racist' angle on the issue, I'd better say that I spent most of my career in the field of regional and town development, a lot of it in depressed parts of the UK, and the rest of it in Europe and Australia. And that's the angle I take on the Israel/Palestine problem; that, due to a crazy immigration policy and discrimination against the native population, it's turned out to be basically a 'depressed area,' with all sorts of mounting economic and social problems.

The setting up of the State of Israel was bungled from the start. Basically, Palestine was never big enough, or well enough resourced in terms of water and arable land, to be able to absorb even the numbers of displaced European Jews envisaged in the 1940s; leave alone the numbers that poured in once the United States began 'bankrolling' the whole project, effectively giving anyone of the Jewish faith a literal 'free ride' in terms both of transportation and of setting up a first home.

In 1947 the population of Palestine was a bit under two milion - mostly Muslims of course, with some Jews and some Christians. The population of what is now termed 'Israel' is nowadays about seven million, of whom about 75% are Jews. In addition to that there are over four million Palestinians crammed into the Gaza Strip and what remains of the West Bank; and about three million Palestinian refugees in Jordan (making up about half Jordan's population).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Palestine

So my solutions to the problem (trying to keep this short) would include the following:-

1. An end to subsidised inward migration (by Jews or anyone else) and the introduction of annual quotas, aimed at holding the population as close as possible to its present level.

2. Equal human rights for all - regardless of religion.

3. Secure borders for the Palestinians in both the West Bank and Gaza - plus economic aid and help with town development. In addition, of course, free movement between the two zones, full access to the outside world, and a 'right of return' (subject to annual quotas) for the refugees in Jordan.

[Edited 2012-11-27 21:41:44]

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: offloaded
Posted 2012-11-28 06:08:02 and read 3353 times.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 33):
In 1947 the population of Palestine was a bit under two milion - mostly Muslims of course, with some Jews and some Christians. The population of what is now termed 'Israel' is nowadays about seven million, of whom about 75% are Jews. In addition to that there are over four million Palestinians crammed into the Gaza Strip and what remains of the West Bank; and about three million Palestinian refugees in Jordan (making up about half Jordan's population).

These are interesting figues, and rather a problem for the "right of return." If you added the two together then suddenly you have an Arab majority in Israel.

Quoting n229nw (Reply 32):
Quoting zrs70 (Reply 19):But the surrounding nations have done little to noting to help the Palestinians. (Why hasn't Jordan or Egypt truly stepped in to help?)That's absolutely true. From a human rights standpoint, the treatment of the Palestinians by Jordan (and Egypt) has been shameful. Those countries have preferred to prioritize the politics of the region over the lives of the refugees.

Not just those two, but most Arab nations., often tending to view them as potential troublemakers Who welcomed them as Arab brothers? Gaddafi kicked 1500 out of Libya in 1995 to protest the PLO/Israel peace agreement. What about the Palestinian leadership? Arafat didn't exactly die a pauper!

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: KiwiRob
Posted 2012-11-28 06:26:58 and read 3346 times.

Quoting offloaded (Reply 34):
If you added the two together then suddenly you have an Arab majority in Israel.

Under current birth rates don't the Arab Israeli citizens become the majority in Israel by 2040 or thereabouts.

This article makes interesting reading.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/24/op...ll-israeli-citizens-are-equal.html

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: offloaded
Posted 2012-11-28 09:10:44 and read 3316 times.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 35):

Interesting article.

I have seen that birthrate forecast before somewhere, and I think you are correct. So then what happens?

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: KiwiRob
Posted 2012-11-28 10:09:12 and read 3302 times.

Quoting offloaded (Reply 36):
So then what happens?

I'm sure the jewish politicians will disenfranchise the arab israelis long before the situation ever gets to the point where jews are the minority; I wouldn't put them past ethnic cleansing either if the Arab population grew too big.

Then there is the Lieberman Plan where Arab settlements will swapped for the jewish settlements in the West Bank. The sneaky part of this plan is that it strips Israeli Arabs of their citizenship and leaves them in the same crap conditions as Palestinians living outside Israel.

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: Pu
Posted 2012-11-28 18:27:18 and read 3271 times.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 33):
conflict is that the place is hopelessly over-crowded, and

I feel the problem is more along these lines than commonly thought.

Everyone is banging on about religion and historical justifications for this or that,

..... but, (much like Belfast in its bad days) to me the real problem is there are a lot of pissed off young men, who are unemployed, forced to live with their parents (cramped), with no prospects for the future, who feel like they're under seige in a small cage.....

...my old professor said anytime a generation of young men can't get work, can't afford to leave home, have no prospects for improvement, etc... then expect wars, riots and violence until something gives. It doesn't take much to get teenaged boys worked up to violence in a happy, wealthy country....shove them all into tiny Gaza and its a powderkeg; I'm sure European/American/Australian young men would start lobbing rockets across the fence if we put them there.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 33):

plus economic aid and help with town developmen

Hopeless, I'm sorry to say, IMO. It would be cheaper just to put them all on the dole, 10000 dollars a year or something. What are they going to do, assemble microchips? Build BMWs? For that size population, there is no viable industry, service or occupation I can think of, can you?

Pu

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: NAV20
Posted 2012-11-28 21:17:11 and read 3251 times.

Quoting offloaded (Reply 34):
These are interesting figues, and rather a problem for the "right of return." If you added the two together then suddenly you have an Arab majority in Israel.

Yes - which is precisely why Israel is so desperate to stop any UN recognition of Palestine. It looks, though, as if the pro-Israel/anti-Palestinian lot (which, to the shame of many of us, appears to include both the USA and the UK) is going to lose that forthcoming UN vote.

Quoting offloaded (Reply 36):
I have seen that birthrate forecast before somewhere, and I think you are correct. So then what happens?
Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 37):
I'm sure the jewish politicians will disenfranchise the arab israelis long before the situation ever gets to the point where jews are the minority; I wouldn't put them past ethnic cleansing either if the Arab population grew too big.

Yes - it's an eerie situation. The Israeli Jewish 'majority' (in government terms, anyway) seems to be moving, at ever-increasing speed, towards a situation where they seem likely to embrace the sort of 'final solution' scenario that Hitler's Nazis inflicted on the German Jews in the 1930s. For a start, the Gaza Strip ('fenced in' and allowed next to no contact with the outside world) looks more and more like a concentration camp, and the West Bank is little better off.

Quoting Pu (Reply 38):
but, (much like Belfast in its bad days) to me the real problem is there are a lot of pissed off young men, who are unemployed, forced to live with their parents (cramped), with no prospects for the future,

That's the supreme irony, seems to me, Pu. Industry, worldwide, is perennially short of 'motivated' labour. All it would take is the local authorities setting up industrial estates, putting in access roads, services etc., and advertising the opportunities effectively; and firms from all over the world would pour in. I can honestly say "Been there, done that" - in an ex-coalmining area. This was the site that I was (I hope justifiably) proudest of........

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=Ta...&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&cad=b

[Edited 2012-11-28 21:20:53]

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: TheCommodore
Posted 2012-11-28 21:47:35 and read 3239 times.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 39):
which is precisely why Israel is so desperate to stop any UN recognition of Palestine.

Hi NAV20

Interesting article from the BBC you might find of interest.

I believe Israel is somewhat "concerned" about the International Criminal Court (ICC)

There is perhaps a good chance of Palestine being granted a hearing, and bring charges against Israel for violating the Geneva Conventions' prohibition on forced displacement of populations.

Seems as though there is a good enough chance of a favorable outcome, and that is enough concern for Netanyahu to be a little scared


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13701636

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: zrs70
Posted 2012-11-28 22:47:04 and read 3225 times.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 39):
Yes - it's an eerie situation. The Israeli Jewish 'majority' (in government terms, anyway) seems to be moving, at ever-increasing speed, towards a situation where they seem likely to embrace the sort of 'final solution' scenario that Hitler's Nazis inflicted on the German Jews in the 1930s. For a start, the Gaza Strip ('fenced in' and allowed next to no contact with the outside worl

Let me understand... Are you saying that Israel want the same solution to Palestine as the Nazis wanted for the Jews?

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: NAV20
Posted 2012-11-29 01:11:55 and read 3213 times.

Quoting zrs70 (Reply 41):
Are you saying that Israel want the same solution to Palestine as the Nazis wanted for the Jews?

Yes. zrs70. The persecution of the people the Nazis considered 'malcontents' - a lot of them, though not all of them, Jews - began with locking them up in 'concentration camps,' from 1933, without trial and with no prospect of release. That's what's happening in Gaza, to my mind - the Gazans aren't allowed out, so they're not free to travel to see their relatives in the West Bank and elsewhere. And the land frontier is guarded by soldiers with guns, who apparently don't hesitate to shoot.

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005263

The 'death camps' came much later, during WW2. So far, thankfully, the Israelis show no sign of moving on to that phase; although killing/wounding some hundreds of innocent Gazan civilians by aerial bombing in the last couple of months is hardly a good sign?

[Edited 2012-11-29 01:14:02]

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: MadameConcorde
Posted 2012-11-29 03:51:20 and read 3189 times.

Today the Palestinian bid is up to voting broadcasted live around the Globe

With Palestinians near certain to win UN recognition, Israel increasingly isolated
At least 150 countries expected to vote in favor of recognizing Palestine as nonmember observer state at General Assembly; U.S., Canada to vote with Israel against resolution, Germany to abstain.

http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomac...olated.premium-1.481242?block=true

The Palestinians are seeking UN recognition of a Palestinian state in the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem, the lands Israel captured in 1967

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20537863

 

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: Pu
Posted 2012-11-29 07:29:00 and read 3153 times.

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 43):
U.S., Canada to vote with Israel against resolution

Interesting that the article says Abbas agreed to pursue this AFTER the US election. Certainly he did not want to risk putting Obama on the spot over this, which would have played into Netanyahu's hopes for a Romney win.

But, could there have been private assurances to Abbas from the Obama administration? Something along the lines of: keep this issue quiet until after the election and the US will not so aggressively try to block it?




Pu

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: zrs70
Posted 2012-11-29 07:46:25 and read 3148 times.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 42):
Yes. zrs70. The persecution of the people the Nazis considered 'malcontents' - a lot of them, though not all of them, Jews - began with locking them up in 'concentration camps,' from 1933, without trial and with no prospect of release. That's what's happening in Gaza, to my mind - the Gazans aren't allowed out, so they're not free to travel to see their relatives in the West Bank and elsewhere. And the land frontier is guarded by soldiers with guns, who apparently don't hesitate to shoot.
Quoting NAV20 (Reply 42):
The 'death camps' came much later, during WW2. So far, thankfully, the Israelis show no sign of moving on to that phase; although killing/wounding some hundreds of innocent Gazan civilians by aerial bombing in the last couple of months is hardly a good sign?

Nav,

I don't believe you truly believe what you are writing. Have you read Mein Kampf? Have you studied the Final Solution? Do you know about the Nuremberg Laws? If you do to any of these, you can't with intellectual integrity compare that to this.

Further, I am really upset that people on this board stand by this commentary, and I hope that others lift their voices.

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: Quokkas
Posted 2012-11-29 07:51:45 and read 3144 times.

Quoting Pu (Reply 44):
Something along the lines of: keep this issue quiet until after the election and the US will not so aggressively try to block it?

It is possible but I am not sure how likely. The US is still publicly opposing it after having threatened to use their veto in the Security Council last year when the request for was member status. At the moment it is for non-member state status. They already have permanent observer status.

If there is a change in the position of the US it is perhaps due to the realisation that Hamas gains from the isolation of Abbas following the recent events in Gaza. While world leaders were meeting with representatives of Hamas, MR Abbas was left at home playing solitaire.

The date was chosen because it marks the date of the 1947 Partition Plan of the United Nations General Assembly. It was picked for the symbolism of that date rather that considerations for the US Elections as the position of the US was already known. If Obama, still believed to be a Muslim by some in the US, supported statehood why did he oppose it in 2011 when it would have been possible to achieve a more favourable outcome and when he himself had set September 2011 as a target date for resolution to the conflict? What has changed in 2012 to suggest that he may have been more amenable?

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: DeltaMD90
Posted 2012-11-29 08:09:19 and read 3137 times.

Quoting zrs70 (Reply 45):
Further, I am really upset that people on this board stand by this commentary, and I hope that others lift their voices.

I don't think he's making an exact comparison. Just because a government does something the Nazis did doesn't make them as bad as the Nazis.

What do you disagree with, may I ask? Do the Israelis not wall up the Palestinians? Aren't they limited in freedom of movement? Haven't there been cases of IDF soldiers wrongly shooing Palestinians? Have the Israelis made any signs of making concentration camps (NAV20 even says he doesn't think so.) Are hundreds of dead Palestinian civilians good?

That is what NAV20 said and those seem more like facts than opinions, so they should easily been proven wrong if they are incorrect. You bringing up Mein Kampf and the Final Solution does bring out emotion, but why? He didn't say Israel has a "final solution" or anything.

Slow your roll, NAV20 sounds personally reasonable even if he disagrees with you. I consider myself pro-Israel but even I think Israel has and continues to make blunders. I also think they're determined to achieve peace and that the Palestinians created a lot of their own mess. If these views make me "anti-Semite," so be it

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: Pu
Posted 2012-11-29 08:13:29 and read 3135 times.

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 46):
What has changed in 2012 to suggest that he may have been more amenable

The resolution was not tabled "until after the US election ... after consultation with other countries" according to the BBC.

What has changed is that Obama has no more elections to face; traditionally US presidents concentrate on foreign policy in their final term, and besides an ideological affinity (my guess) for the Palestinians, a crowning legacy for any president would be managing a resolution of the Israel-Palestinian conflict....basically all the recent Democratic presidents have tried for this and made some progress.

We don't know what the calculations are, this may be a bargaining chip to get Israel to resume talks or move on a partcular issue, or who knows? in any event The Obama Administration can make more politically risky moves now that they have 4 years to ride it out and face no election anyway. (although Obama staffers would certainly expect a job if a Democrat wins in 2016)



Pu

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: Quokkas
Posted 2012-11-29 09:43:23 and read 3113 times.

Quoting zrs70 (Reply 45):
and I hope that others lift their voices.

There are indeed comparisons to be made but that does mean that the positions are identical.

In Mein Kampf Hitler spelt out his view of a future German Society free of what he saw as factors weakening Germany. The Jewish Virtual Library does publish some extracts from Mein Kampf that show how vitriolic Hitler was in his hatred. Yet they don't publish any that show that he wanted to physically exterminate an entire race. The term he used, which is quoted by the JVL, was "entfernen" which means to separate. He wanted to drive them out. Such views are commonplace in Israel in relation to Palestinians today.

Some have drawn the conclusion that the Nazis has a plan to exterminate Jews from the start. Yet we know that they didn't enact any such plan. Yes, there were incidents of violence and these incidents were orchestrated, but they did not as yet constitute a plan that was later developed. "Die Endlösung" was not adopted until eight years after the seizure and well into the war. Do not get me wrong, I am in no way trying to minimise what happened or excusing it either.

The initial intent was to drive out Jews and we see this in the framing of the Nuremberg Laws. I repeat laws because some people like to stress how much laws are important to excuse actions. We have seen claims that certain countries are based on laws and bound by laws as if that excuses what they do. Laws are not always fair and equitable and can be downright inhumane, so we ought not concentrate on whether something is legal so much as whether it is right.

When the Nazis seized power their first victims were NOT Jews as Jews. Their first victims were those who could oppose them: trade unionists, socialists, communists and others, although many were Jews. The first enactments against Jews were designed to isolate and drive out. While every effort was made to ensure Jews could not remove assets from Germany (by forcing their sale and paying deliberately low prices for assets) the regime did not oppose emigration.

In that sense NAV20 is right to limit his comparison to the 1930s. He has not suggested that Israel plans the industrialisation of genocide. And that is perhaps what marks the holocaust apart from previous genocides. Historically Jews have been victims of discrimination that restricted freedom to practice religion, limited the trades they could carry out, barred them from owning land, imposed special fines and taxes upon them and subjected them to pogroms.

The distinguishing feature of the holocaust is not so much killing of Jews but the industrialisation of the process. We are horrified by its scale yet it was only the application of science and method that allowed for murder on such a scale. Never before in history had an approach been adopted where the cost-benefit analysis was made whereby the rate of killing, the cost of transportation, the most efficient means, how to maximise output of slave labour and minimise the cost of rations, at what point it costs more to keep someone alive and becomes cheaper to kill them Everything was calculated in a cold, scientific fashion, down to the last Reichmark. The camps were expected to pay for themselves like any other business, hence the conversion of hair into fabric to make coats, etc. It was not blind, irrational killing. It was systematic in a way that contrasted with previous pogroms that were amateurish by comparison.

Is Israel planning this? Of course not and I doubt you will find Nav20 suggesting that. But it is clear that the very foundation of Israel rests upon depriving people who were living there at the time of its foundation of their homes. It was not possible otherwise. That practice is continuing. A look at a map of the West Bank showing areas under direct military control, Palestinian-Israeli joint control and the areas in which "security perimeters" are being constructed makes Palestine look like Emmental cheese. Just as Germany had its ghetto walls, so Israel has its "security perimeters" that restrict the freedom of movement of the Palestinians.

Since WW2 Germany has been willing to pay compensation and make restitution to the victims and families of the deceased. Jews who wish to return to Germany are made welcome and offered every assistance. The have made holocaust denial a criminal offence. In contrast, Israel denies the Nakba, continues to dispossess the indigenous population, confines people to ghettos, has laws that prevent Israeli Arabs living with non-Israeli Arabs in Israel, apply absentee laws to confiscate land held by those driven out and unable to return.

And you ask are there any similarities. Of course there are. But as Nav20 stated, Israel has not proposed the final solution that was adopted at the Wannsee Conference.

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: EDKA
Posted 2012-11-29 10:22:46 and read 3105 times.

Quoting zrs70 (Reply 45):
Further, I am really upset that people on this board stand by this commentary, and I hope that others lift their voices.

Zrs70 - unfortunately there are double or triple standards that seem to be applicable to Israel on this board. Just accept it. You can bang yuo head against the wall, but people will still make comparisons between Israel's treatment of Palestinians and Nazi's; people are comparing Hamas to Israeli governement. Some people are being blatanly Anti Semitic in some cases, yet thats ok....

Israel can never do anything right, because ther starting point is either "Israel shold not exist" or "Israel should not exist where it is"....

I think for most people the "2 state solution, 1967 borders" seems like acceptable one, but for some thats still not good enough....





BTW, couple of days ago, Syrian government forces have killed about 10-12 kids, injured about 40-50 people in the cluster bomb attack...Did anyone mentioned that? Opened a thread? Condemned it? Does anyone give a shit??

You can just imagine the dicussion, if that was Israeli cluster bombs in Gaza..........

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: powerslide
Posted 2012-11-29 10:58:27 and read 3096 times.

Quoting EDKA (Reply 50):
You can just imagine the dicussion, if that was Israeli cluster bombs in Gaza..........

Didn't you get the international memo? Jews don't have right to protect themselves. Arabs are allowed to kill each other without repercussions and it has become the norm. People are a lot more anti-semite/Israeli than they think and its borderline racism, they just don't accept it. Israel can unleash its military on Gaza and flatten that piece of land for good. When Syria uses its military on its own people, or when Iran executes people publicly on the streets of Tehran no one cares. Israel sends in a fighter jet and drops a precision bomb on a weapons factory people grab their pitch forks and call bloody murder. The double standards, pathetic.

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: Revelation
Posted 2012-11-29 11:31:59 and read 3082 times.

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 49):
But it is clear that the very foundation of Israel rests upon depriving people who were living there at the time of its foundation of their homes. It was not possible otherwise.

Is that historically correct, in the context of #9 above, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_Partition_Plan ?

It seems to be a plan that would have made it possible to have an Israel and a Palestine without depriving people of their homes, and with rights for the minorities in both countries.

Interestingly, "In 2011, Palestinian president Mahmoud Abbas stated that the Arab rejection of the partition plan was a mistake he hoped to rectify.[10]" (ibid).

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: zrs70
Posted 2012-11-29 12:12:30 and read 3073 times.

Below is an excerpt from the Israeli Declaration of Independence. We cannot deny that at its core, Israel believe sin rights of all people. And keep in mind that Israel has more rights for minorities than most surrounding nations. Rights of women. Rights of gays and lesbians. Freedom of religion. (rememeber - there are Muslims service in Israeli parliament).


... Israel will be open for Jewish immigration and for the Ingathering of the Exiles; it will foster the development of the country for the benefit of all its inhabitants; it will be based on freedom, justice and peace as envisaged by the prophets of Israel; it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights to all its inhabitants irrespective of religion, race or sex; it will guarantee freedom of religion, conscience, language, education and culture; it will safeguard the Holy Places of all religions; ... in the very midst of the onslaught launched against us now for months – to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions. We extend our hand to all neighbouring states and their peoples in an offer of peace and good neighbourliness, and appeal to them to establish bonds of cooperation and mutual help with the sovereign Jewish people settled in its own land. The State of Israel is prepared to do its share in a common effort for the advancement of the entire Middle East."

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: racko
Posted 2012-11-29 12:39:23 and read 3066 times.

I don't think most people have any particular problem with what Israel does within its own territory. The problem lies beyond the 1967 borders - which the world considers "not Israel", but rather occupied territory.

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: KiwiRob
Posted 2012-11-29 12:40:13 and read 3065 times.

Quoting zrs70 (Reply 53):
Israel will be open for Jewish immigration

Yet it will not allow Palestinians who were kicked out to return

Quoting zrs70 (Reply 53):
it will be based on freedom, justice and peace

unless you're Palestinian

Quoting zrs70 (Reply 53):
it will ensure complete equality of social and political rights

Yet Arab Israeli citizens do not have the freedom to marry who they wish to marry.

Quoting zrs70 (Reply 53):
to the Arab inhabitants of the State of Israel to preserve peace and participate in the upbuilding of the State on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all its provisional and permanent institutions.

And these people were under marshal law until the 60's.

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: Pu
Posted 2012-11-29 13:06:18 and read 3059 times.

Quoting EDKA (Reply 50):
- unfortunately there are double or triple standards that
Quoting powerslide (Reply 51):
When Syria uses its military on its own people, or when Iran executes people publicly on the streets of Tehran no one cares

You two are right about Israel being called to account for everything while violence in other countries is ignored. A double standard.

BUT

You two are wrong about the reason.

It isn't anti-semitism. Its the fact that from Munich to September 11th the existence of Israel has resulted in great harm to countries besides Israel, especially in Europe and the United States. The violence in most every other place is contained, so, as long as their dispute doesn't involve the rest of the world, most are content to ignore.

But the Israeli-Palestinian dispute involves us all because we all "own" it to some extent. America massively susidises Israel and the EU massively subsidises the PA: since my tax dollars get sent to either fund or repair the violence in the conflict, I have a right to condemn whoever I like...as do the Americans and the rest of Europe.



Pu

[Edited 2012-11-29 13:28:42]

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: zrs70
Posted 2012-11-29 13:38:04 and read 3039 times.

Quoting Pu (Reply 56):
It isn't anti-semitism. Its the fact that from Munich to September 11th the existence of Israel has resulted in great harm to countries besides Israel, especially in Europe and the United States. The violence in most every other place is contained, so, as long as their dispute doesn't involve the rest of the world, most are content to ignore.

Wow! So if I understand .... The violence around the words is because of Israel. And we should ignore the violence that is contained.

I want to make sure I understand exactly what you are saying before I respond.

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: TheCommodore
Posted 2012-11-29 13:50:28 and read 3029 times.

Quoting zrs70 (Reply 53):
Below is an excerpt from the Israeli Declaration of Independence. We cannot deny that at its core, Israel believe sin rights of all people. And keep in mind that Israel has more rights for minorities than most surrounding nations. Rights of women. Rights of gays and lesbians. Freedom of religion. (rememeber - there are Muslims service in Israeli parliament).

Rights.......  Wow!

Yeah right !

I never laughed so loud in my life.

http://electronicintifada.net/conten...-racial-segregation-policies/11065

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: DeltaMD90
Posted 2012-11-29 14:30:23 and read 3008 times.

Quoting EDKA (Reply 50):
I think for most people the "2 state solution, 1967 borders" seems like acceptable one, but for some thats still not good enough....

Who is up and arms about it on this board? I think almost everyone on here would like that. In fact, it seems that many are against the Palestinian state.

Quoting EDKA (Reply 50):
BTW, couple of days ago, Syrian government forces have killed about 10-12 kids, injured about 40-50 people in the cluster bomb attack...Did anyone mentioned that? Opened a thread? Condemned it? Does anyone give a shit??

The difference is that Syria is in a civil war and Israel is a stable democracy, they are going to be held to higher standards. Who doesn't condemn Syria? Even Russia is wary of them. I see what you are saying, there is often a double standard indeed, but just because we don't start a thread about Syrians killing civilians doesn't mean we should allow Israel a free pass. I like Israel, I hope they prosper... being a friend of them though, I'm gonna call them out when I see them ****ing up, any good friend would, wouldn't they?

Quoting zrs70 (Reply 57):
Wow! So if I understand .... The violence around the words is because of Israel. And we should ignore the violence that is contained.

Well, had Israel not existed, there would probably be less violence indeed. But I don't condone getting rid of Israel. I think the implementation of the state was flawed, and leaving them hung to dry and fend for themselves against many aggressive countries was wrong. I don't think Israel should be disbanded as a country.

As for the second part, well, sadly, human nature states that (most) people don't care about violence if it doesn't affect them. 25 people in Africa die in a shooting? Who cares? In America 25 people die, HOLY ____!!! (I'm not saying Americans are better than Africans, it is just human nature to be more concerned with people that affect you.

Overall, I think his post was pretty blunt and he could've been more tactful, but I don't think he's an anti-Semite or anything.

BTW, I'm still hoping you'll answer my questions I put in reply 47. You went on about how many of us in this thread are standing by as the Israelis are treated unfairly... how are they in that reply? You made a lot of noise about that post, I'd like to see it because it suspiciously looks like "he didn't agree with me, he's anti-Semitic." You wanted to have a civil debate in this thread, please, tell me your side.


And that really goes for a few posters... I hear about antisemitism and double standards... where are they? I see people condemning certain Israeli actions but that does NOT mean they don't also condemn some of Palestine's actions.

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: EDKA
Posted 2012-11-29 15:08:47 and read 2992 times.

Quoting Pu (Reply 56):

You two are right about Israel being called to account for everything while violence in other countries is ignored. A double standard.
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 59):
I see what you are saying, there is often a double standard indeed,

i am glad that you have noticed it too....

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 59):
The difference is that Syria is in a civil war and Israel is a stable democracy, they are going to be held to higher standards. Who doesn't condemn Syria? Even Russia is wary of them. I see what you are saying, there is often a double standard indeed, but just because we don't start a thread about Syrians killing civilians doesn't mean we should allow Israel a free pass.

Nobody is asking for free pass. But there is a deep underlying problem, which is like i said: in some peoples eyes Israel can do no right, whatever they do...

oh, by the way, Russia is not wary of Syria, they used to call all the shots there... Not sure for how much longer, but just fyi.....

[Edited 2012-11-29 15:16:55]

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: DeltaMD90
Posted 2012-11-29 15:20:54 and read 2985 times.

Quoting EDKA (Reply 60):
Nobody is asking for free pass. But there is a deep underlying problem, which is like i said: in some peoples eyes Israel can do no right, whatever they do...

And I agree with this. I try to call these people out as well. If you look at my posts, you'll hopefully notice that. That being said, I personally see mostly pro-pro-pro-Israel and people in the center. I can see how someone that disagrees with Israeli actions and doesn't at the same time condemn Palestinian ones can appear biased, but that is not always the case. And to be fair, there are some pretty blatantly anti-Israel posts, but most of what I have seen, bias wise, is against the Palestinians with little accountability for Israel's actions.

You cannot justify one's wrongs with the wrongs of others, and sometimes, not even acknowledging your wrongs (or giving lip service to them without really working to fix them) can appear to be justifying them or subtlety allowing wrong

Quoting EDKA (Reply 60):
oh, by the way, Russia is not wary of Syria, they used to call all the shots there... Not sure for how long, but just fyi.....

I though just recently that Russia said something like they are tired of Syria or something? I know Syria has traditionally been under Russia's wing. Could be wrong, I'll look it up

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: Pu
Posted 2012-11-29 15:51:31 and read 2978 times.

Quoting zrs70 (Reply 57):


Wow! So if I understand .... The violence around the words is because of Israel. And we should ignore the violence that is contained.

I want to make sure I understand exactly what you are saying before I respond.
In households where English is spoken my post #56 is not ambiguous and needs no clarification. (you might also read my post #6 which might illuminate my POV better for you.) Since your aim is apparently to invoke antisemitism anytime Israeli policy is critisised and make disingenuously false characterisations of what I write to further your agenda, the value of me and you discussing this is questionable.

You don't seek to understand others - you just want to convince people you are right and make them fit into your pre-conceived labels.

If you want to ask questions or respond to my post in good faith, I'll happily respond thoughtfully - but so far I'm just seeing the same approach and attitude that caused Israel to lose European public support and which tolerates no other viewpoint but your own.


Pu

[Edited 2012-11-29 16:19:42]

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: zrs70
Posted 2012-11-29 16:35:53 and read 2962 times.

Quoting Pu (Reply 62):
In households where English is spoken my post #56 is not ambiguous and needs no clarification. (you might also read my post #6 which might illuminate my POV better for you.) Since your aim is apparently to invoke antisemitism anytime Israeli policy is critisised and make disingenuously false characterisations of what I write to further your agenda, the value of me and you discussing this is questionable.

You don't seek to understand others - you just want to convince people you are right and make them fit into your pre-conceived labels.

If you want to ask questions or respond to my post in good faith, I'll happily respond thoughtfully - but so far I'm just seeing the same approach and attitude that caused Israel to lose European public support and which tolerates no other viewpoint but your own.

Didn't mean to offend. I haven't mentioned nor hinted at anti-Jewish sentiment. (If I have, please show me where. I don't want to be the impetus for name calling!). I'm only seeking clarity.

Pu, I really don't want to create spin or put words in anyone's mouth. If what I wrote does not reflect what you said or meant to say, please forgive me. If it does reflect your point of view, then the conversation should continue!

I don't believe I have name called, created labels, or pointed fingers. I have put forth that Israel needs to do a better job. And while I acknowledge the very difficult situation, I also believe that Palestine has won so much world support - not because of their integrity. Rather, because they have better PR - and they have done a good job at getting world sympathy. Some of it I believe is justified. Some of it is fabricated. (Remember the video of the funeral for the slain Palestinian who rose from the dead to run from enemy fire!).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgQLGYb9Xfo

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: DeltaMD90
Posted 2012-11-29 16:36:24 and read 2961 times.

Quoting Pu (Reply 62):
Since your aim is apparently to invoke antisemitism anytime Israeli policy is critisised and make disingenuously false characterisations of what I write to further your agenda, the value of me and you discussing this is questionable.

You don't seek to understand others - you just want to convince people you are right and make them fit into your pre-conceived labels.

   The hostility is ironic considering the OP wanted to start a rational debate and get others' opinions. I'm still unconvinced there is any antisemitism from anyone on here.

The worst I've heard is some unnamed poster from Finland going on about how the Palestinians should be armed and the Israelis essentially wiped out, or something to that regard. Ok, maybe that is a little antisemitic (or just crazy) but most people on here are just criticizing Israel (which isn't "bashing" in my book.)

If I am wrong, please, someone show me. There are only a few dozen replies, can't be that hard to find

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: zrs70
Posted 2012-11-29 16:46:37 and read 2955 times.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 47):
What do you disagree with, may I ask? Do the Israelis not wall up the Palestinians? Aren't they limited in freedom of movement? Haven't there been cases of IDF soldiers wrongly shooing Palestinians? Have the Israelis made any signs of making concentration camps (NAV20 even says he doesn't think so.) Are hundreds of dead Palestinian civilians good?

Hey, Delta! Sorry for the delay in my response. You deserve answers that you asked. Again, I'm not a Middle East expert. And while I stand with Israel, I'm not blind to the very real issues going on.

1) Issue of the wall. This is a wall of separation and protection. Before the wall went up, terror was much worse. When I last visited Israel, I went to the other side of the wall in Hebron. I was in shock. On the Israeli side, there were empty streets, run down homes, and generally a pretty sad state of affairs. On the Palestinian side, there was commerce, construction, and people in the streets.

Mind you, this was a snapshot I saw. I'm not ignoring the poverty that also exists. That said, we need to keep in mind that there are hospitals, universities, and professionals in the West Bank. It's not the Warsaw Ghetto!

2) Limited in freedom of movement. Yes, there are limitations. Catch -22. If there were no terrorism, there would be no limitations. On the other hand, if there were no limitations, would there be violence to begin with? Experts can answer that question!

3) IDF soldiers wrongly shooting Palestinians? Probably. But in the Ghetto, the Nazi were purposeful in their shootings. Big difference. IDF does not purposefully shoot civilians (though civilians certainly die).

4) No concentration camps that I know of.

5) Dead civilians are not good.

[Edited 2012-11-29 16:48:31]

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: powerslide
Posted 2012-11-29 17:22:15 and read 2943 times.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 59):
Well, had Israel not existed

Well, had Hitler not ruled Germany........

Stop. Living. In. The. Past.

Deal with the issues that are present NOW. Arabs and Palestinians are still living in the past, Israel is not. Israel is advancing as a society while the Arab nations are still decades behind the rest of the world. I can't wait when the world finds another energy source besides oil, the Arab region will be completely meaningless on the world stage, much like the native population in Canada and the US.

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: Pu
Posted 2012-11-29 17:37:57 and read 2936 times.

Quoting zrs70 (Reply 63):

then the conversation should continue!

Ok.
To restate my reaction to the point that there is a double standard such that the Palestinians (and other countries) get a pass for things Israelis do that draw worldwide condemnation......yes, there is a double standard.. The Europeans and Americans are subsidising both Israel and the Palestinians and therefore buy the right to apply whatever standards they like. As DeltaMD says, Africa is an ongoing tragedy largely ignored. Because it is contained. But the ME conflict effects us all.


Quoting zrs70 (Reply 63):
not because of their integrity. Rather, because they have better PR

No.
The Democrats did not win the US election because people were deceived by the media or PR, likewise the Palestinians did not gain the sympathy of most of the world because of the media or PR.People in the minority always think the majority has been manipulated by the media these days. Thats always bullcrap!



Quoting zrs70 (Reply 63):

I'm only seeking clarity

I am a dedicated student of late second temple Judaism and early Christianity and try to visit the archeaological sites when I can, that is when my wife lets me....(for some reason she is scared I'll be blown up by the Palestinians while riding a Jerusalem bus or get caught in an Israeli raid while visiting Bethleham). My experience is that the Palestinians are in perpetual victim mode and that the Israelis don't really want a Palestinian state....the fact that my wife is American earns me an especially lengthy lecture from the West Bank Muslims I have spoken with about all this, and from Israelis in the bar at the King David Hotel. The world media is not inaccurate in presenting their positions, from my subjective experience.

I wish America and the EU (or "the Quartet") would get together and say that Israelis + Palestinians have 6 months to negotiate a peaceful 2 state solution, and if that fails, a solution will be created for them enforced by American, European and Russian military and economic might.


Pu

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: PHX787
Posted 2012-11-29 17:56:27 and read 2926 times.

Quoting powerslide (Reply 66):
Well, had Hitler not ruled Germany........

Stop. Living. In. The. Past.

Deal with the issues that are present NOW. Arabs and Palestinians are still living in the past, Israel is not.

ALL of this.

This is why the political system pisses me off!!!!! Nobody is willing to actually talk. This is pathetic that we actually have to say this.

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: DeltaMD90
Posted 2012-11-29 18:03:40 and read 2922 times.

Quoting zrs70 (Reply 65):
Issue of the wall.

Completely anecdotal, but my experience was flipped... Tel Aviv, Jerusalem, and other Israeli cities were pretty well maintained while Bethlehem was a dump. But you acknowledge that poverty does exist. Why? Is any of that Israel's doing? (I know Palestine has a lot to do with that, but we have to own up to our side's mistakes.

And I may get yelled at from the people that have been agreeing with me, but I'm not that opposed to the wall. I see its need and it has done a lot to reduce violence. But it's more than just a wall... it's a blockade/siege. Freedom of movement is very difficult. Palestinians have less rights. Many supplies don't get to Palestine. If the wall was just about security (including scanning of shipments) it would be one thing to me, but it's more than just that.

It's kind of like any border with any country, except for the fact that Palestine is basically a big island in the middle of Israel and Israel can easily impose its will on Palestinians. Does that all make sense? I'm not just anti-Israeli, I understand why they do most the things they do. I just think some of them hurt them in the long run.

Quoting zrs70 (Reply 65):
Limited in freedom of movement. Yes, there are limitations. Catch -22. If there were no terrorism, there would be no limitations.

I'm not a security expert, but I believe better freedom of movement could be maintained with the same level of security. I'm very cautious in the articles I read, but it appears that the restrictions are a bit overly restrictive, past the point of security

Quoting zrs70 (Reply 65):
IDF does not purposefully shoot civilians (though civilians certainly die).
Quoting zrs70 (Reply 65):
5) Dead civilians are not good.

And here is, what I believe, is one of the main issues. It's human nature. You just admitted your side's wrongdoings. You know they are wrong, and I believe that you are sorry for these accidents.

BUT, look at it from the Palestinians' view. They are ENRAGED. Pissed off beyond belief. A simple sorry will not appease them. They need to see major acknowledgement and steps taken to prevent another event like this from happening again.

Look what happens when an American missile shoots down a British aircraft. The US and Britain, great allies in the same fight. After a true accident between friends like this, there is deep anger, and only because they are such good allies can they move on. When you see allies get angry at each other, you can understand how the Palestinians can be so full of hate seeing even sporadic civilian deaths.

What is Israel doing to prevent situations like this from happening again? Has Israel made a deep, sincere apology? If the answer is no, you can't expect to see the Palestinians change heart. Try to see it from their end. There is going to be a lot of irrationality and hatred when they're dying, it's what humans do

Quoting powerslide (Reply 66):
Stop. Living. In. The. Past.

Have you even read any of my comments? I've been going off at people for using what happened in 1948 and 1967 as excuses for what is going on now. In regards to that comment, I was defending yet another poster from being called antisemitic just because they said _________ about Israel that wasn't antisemitic at all

Quoting powerslide (Reply 66):
Deal with the issues that are present NOW.

I agree. So stop using the wars decades ago as justification for Israel's actions today

Quoting powerslide (Reply 66):
Israel is advancing as a society while the Arab nations are still decades behind the rest of the world.

Yes. And? This means Palestine should not be granted statehood? Do not follow you here.

Quoting powerslide (Reply 66):
meaningless on the world stage, much like the native population in Canada and the US.

WTF?

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: PanHAM
Posted 2012-11-30 02:57:59 and read 2872 times.

Quoting zrs70 (Reply 45):
Further, I am really upset that people on this board stand by this commentary, and I hope that others lift their voices.

I was going to reply, but then I rather did pot.

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 47):
What do you disagree with, may I ask? Do the Israelis not wall up the Palestinians? Aren't they limited in freedom of movement? Haven't there been cases of IDF soldiers wrongly shooing Palestinians? Have the Israelis made any signs of making concentration camps (NAV20 even says he doesn't think so.) Are hundreds of dead Palestinian civilians good?

The fndamental difference between Hitler and his national socialist party and the democratic Israel is, that Hitler acted on Ideology and Israel reacts on attacks.

Hitler and his gang ordered his police and special army troops to remove common people from the live they have lived as normal citizens in Germany and later in the countries Germany occupied and displaced them in cattle cars to concentration camps, some of which later became death camps. These people had not committed any crime, they did not even oppose the regime or anything.

Whereas the radcial forces of Palestinians regularly attacked isreli civilians, until Israel build that wall, making it more difficult, also by electornic devices, for Palestinians to cross into Israel.

Comparing Israel with the national socialst regime that occupied Germany between 1933 and 1945 is simply stupid.

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 49):
"entfernen" which means to separate

"Entfernen" means remove. Not separate. The intention was from the beginning to remove Jews from the German society and that included killing. Not only jews, BTW, also homosexuals and gypsies. And whoever else dared to stand up against the regime.

I keep repeating it over and over again, through various threads here, the biggest enemy of the Palestinian people is not Israel, the biggest enemy are the Palestinian hardliners and terrorists. They make live for those in Gaza miserable.

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: bjorn14
Posted 2012-11-30 04:47:44 and read 2849 times.

Quoting KiwiRob (Reply 37):
The sneaky part of this plan is that it strips Israeli Arabs of their citizenship and leaves them in the same crap conditions as Palestinians living outside Israel.

Most Israeli Arabs want to keep their citizenship.

Quoting Pu (Reply 48):
this may be a bargaining chip to get Israel to resume talks

Israel has already agreed to peace talks, it's the Palestinians who want preconditions on those talks. Israel refused those conditions and then Hamas went crying to the UN that Israel wouldn't negotiate. But I'm sure both sides even disagree about this.

IMHO, the Palestinians are just pawns by the rest of the Islamic world for the ultimate descrution of Israel. When Israel was created the Palestinians were offered their own state and they refused.

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: Quokkas
Posted 2012-11-30 04:55:42 and read 2846 times.

Israel was founded on ideology and has allowed ideology to shape its policies towards the Palestinians. It is simply not the case that Israel is an injured party trying to defend itself. The official party position of Likud, stated in its Charter, is that there will never be a Palestinian State west of the Jordan River. Likud is the party the current Prime Minister of Israel belongs to. While he may not whole-heartedly support the official position due to the realities of office, we have seen how Netanyahu has allowed expansion of settlements and dispossessing Palestinians in the West Bank. So yes, Israel is facilitating the removal Palestinians from the land that Zionists see as their own. This is their publicly stated position.

The Palestinians have been repeatedly told to negotiate, use civilised means, diplomatic channels. Yet when they do what is the response of both Israel and the so-called civilised countries. It is intimidation and threats. The application to be recognised as a non-member state at the UN is a perfect illustration of that. Why the insistence on opposing it? Because it is based on the 1967 Borders and as we can see there are many within Netanyahu's party that will not accept that.

Take Moshe Feiglin, who won around 25% of votes in a challenge to Netanyahu for the party chairmanship, and see what he has to say:
"The Arabs in the West Bank have no nationality apart from being part of the big Arab nation. They can stay in Judea and Samaria [the Biblical term for the West Bank], with rights they won't get anywhere else in the Arab world, as long as they accept Israel's sovereignty. They will have human rights but not the right to vote. If voting is so important to them, they have 22 Arab countries to choose from."

Could you imagine the reaction if you were to say something like that in Germany, swapping the word Arabs with Jews? All hell would break loose. There would be charges of inciting race hatred. Yet this language is perfectly acceptable to Likud.

And more, "Israel is the home of the Jewish people. It is not a state of all its citizens." So even if the Palestinians were to completely submit to demands to be "civilised" to people like Feiglin they would remain at best second-class citizens or encouraged to leave.

This is not some lone crank. About 7% of Likud's members live in the West Bank and they enjoy broader support within Israel.

To simply claim that Israel is a victim in all this is to deny the very real discrimination Palestinians face. We see claims the the Palestinians are not a people, we see claims that they have no nationality, we see claims that they have simply attacked without provocation out of an irrational hatred. All the while, the expansion of Israeli settlements continues and more people are forced from their land. This is real and yet people simply ignore it or seek to justify it.

I agree that the strategy pursued by Hamas does nothing to improve the lot of ordinary Palestinians, yet the alternative strategy adopted by the PLO and the PA have not stopped settlers' encroachments, have not resulted in any genuine desire to accomplish a lasting peace. Is it perhaps possible that Likud's Charter may be a small part of why?

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 70):
"Entfernen" means remove.

Thank you for the correction. I had a mental block at the time and by the time the correct word came to mind I could no longer edit the post.

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: NAV20
Posted 2012-11-30 05:04:53 and read 2841 times.

Quoting PanHAM (Reply 70):
Hitler and his gang ordered his police and special army troops to remove common people from the live they have lived as normal citizens in Germany and later in the countries Germany occupied and displaced them in cattle cars to concentration camps, some of which later became death camps. These people had not committed any crime, they did not even oppose the regime or anything.

All true enough. And they deservedly gained a lot of sympathy from the rest of the world because of it. What isn't as well-known, though, is that said 'rest of the world' then 'compensated' the Jews by giving them most of Palestine. Which resulted in the merciless persecution and driving out of the Palestinians who were already living there..........

Maybe it's time to tell people a bit about what actually happened in Palestine back in those days.

I was a small child at the time - but I had an 'uncle' (actually an older cousin) who had been a regular soldier in the British Army, and also a founder-member of the Special Air Service. He'd fought right through WW2, in North Africa, Italy, and Germany, and then found himself occupying Palestine up to 1948. He left the army soon after that - I only learned much later that he got out because he was deeply depressed over the things he had had to do to Palestinian refugees who were being driven out of their ancestral homes by invading Jews........basically herd them into refugee camps and then guard them and feed them like prisoners of war. In between fighting Jewish terrorist organisations like the Stern Gang.........

This video will give people some idea about what went on at the time - basically many hundreds of thousands, probably millions, of Palestinians being driven out of their ancestral homes, never to return. Not because of anything that they had done; but because of what the Nazi Germans had done to the European Jews.......

Effectively, in 1948/9 and beyond, the Jews (perhaps I should say 'Zionists') practised what can only be described as Nazi-style 'ethnic cleansing' on the grand scale.........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MM1f6n5nj4

Only a short video, but it gets the main 'picture' over. Plenty more information available if you google 'Palestine 1948' or similar........

[Edited 2012-11-30 05:19:29]

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: Quokkas
Posted 2012-11-30 05:22:59 and read 2836 times.

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 71):
it's the Palestinians who want preconditions on those talks.

While Israel and the US repeatedly call for negotiations without preconditions, both have stated their own preconditions. The Israelis require not simply the recognition of Israel but Israel as a Jewish State. They have also categorically rejected any discussion of the right to return. Those are preconditions whether you wish to call them that or not.

Quoting bjorn14 (Reply 71):
Hamas went crying to the UN

The application for recognition of Palestine as a non-member state was made by the Palestinian Authority, not Hamas.

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: 777way
Posted 2012-11-30 05:54:04 and read 2829 times.

Quoting EDKA (Reply 50):
BTW, couple of days ago, Syrian government forces have killed about 10-12 kids, injured about 40-50 people in the cluster bomb attack...Did anyone mentioned that? Opened a thread? Condemned it? Does anyone give a shit??You can just imagine the dicussion, if that was Israeli cluster bombs in Gaza..........

does not compare, the Syrians are doing it to their own people which is not the case with Israel or Palestine, I dont think anyone discusses when two Palestinian groups go against each other, nor would anyone be interested in discussing Israeli groups fithing each other in Israel if that were the case and Israel had been a place like Syria, but the real current Israel facing any najor internal turmoil would a hot topic for discussions.

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: Revelation
Posted 2012-11-30 06:53:50 and read 2814 times.

Quoting Quokkas (Reply 72):
Take Moshe Feiglin, who won around 25% of votes in a challenge to Netanyahu for the party chairmanship, and see what he has to say:
Quoting Quokkas (Reply 72):
This is not some lone crank

Right, not a lone crank, but put another way, 75% of Likud's members did NOT vote for him, neither did all non-Likud party members.

It's not very hard to find a politician in the Palestinian camp who feels Israel should not exist either.

I think your premise is quite credible: many in Israel want to continue to control the West Bank, but it seems pretty obvious that the tide of time is against them, providing the West Bank Palestinians continue to make strides within the limited power they currently have.

I also believe many in the Palestinian camp's careers if not lives depend on continued struggle if not outright terrorism against Israel.

IMO both sides have politicians who are heavily invested in the status quo.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 73):
Maybe it's time to tell people a bit about what actually happened in Palestine back in those days.

I'm not sure which time frame you are talking about. Is this before or after the neighboring Arab nations invaded in 1948?

I'm wondering why that event is not included in your narrative. It is quite prominent in Israel's timeline of events, arguably too prominent, but still...

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: Quokkas
Posted 2012-11-30 07:40:14 and read 2816 times.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 76):
neither did all non-Likud party members.

At an internal party conference that would not have been possible but I accept that just as the majority of party members did not support Feiglin, so too not everybody voted for Lukid at the last elections. Nevertheless, Likud provides the PM and when a so-called land council was set up in 2010 to advance the cause of settlers only three Likud MKs did not support it. Netanyahu did not to his credit.

Further, when the Israeli Supreme Court ordered the removal of a settler post, many prominent Likud members, including Ministers in the Government flocked to show their support for the settlers and opposition to the Court. So these are people who have an influence greater than their numbers would suggest. There is a difference between a beer-gut belching in a bar on his way home to beat up the missus and a Minister in the Government saying the same things.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 76):
It's not very hard to find a politician in the Palestinian camp who feels Israel should not exist either.

Agreed and given that Israel was created out of land that was previously inhabited by families who had lived there for centuries that is perhaps not surprising. Do not get me wrong and assume that I believe that Israel should not exist. I stated previously my wish to see a Two State solution, but we can not ignore the fact that the creation of a Jewish Homeland did not rest on the premise of Jews already living in Palestine but on the premise that it would be inhabited by people from outside the region. Sure we have seen that occur with the formation of States like Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the US, but that does not change the fact that people who have been displaced will resent it.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 76):
I also believe many in the Palestinian camps careers if not lives depend on continued struggle

That I can also believe. In every situation there are those willing to exploit the situation for their own gain. In that Palestinians are unlikely to be different to anyone else.

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: moo
Posted 2012-11-30 07:58:03 and read 2810 times.

Oh look, new Israeli building projects announced for the occupied territories...

Coincidence in the timing? I think not.

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: NAV20
Posted 2012-11-30 17:03:27 and read 2762 times.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 76):
I'm not sure which time frame you are talking about. Is this before or after the neighboring Arab nations invaded in 1948?

I'm wondering why that event is not included in your narrative.

You can't have watched the video, Revelation? It's fully covered in that; some neighbouring countries sent troops in in an attempt to protect the Palestinian civilians who were being forcibly driven out of their homes by the hundreds of thousands?

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: caliatenza
Posted 2012-11-30 17:57:43 and read 2745 times.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 79):

You can't have watched the video, Revelation? It's fully covered in that; some neighbouring countries sent troops in in an attempt to protect the Palestinian civilians who were being forcibly driven out of their homes by the hundreds of thousands?

ive seen this video before, as part of a bigger piece on the issue. Ive also read that the majority of Palestinians were not forced from their homes..rather the Arab countries told them to leave on the promise that they will drive out the Jews and get all their land back. Were there some forced migrations, yeah..of course, the piece that i read had that information as well. Look, the point is..no body is leaving now..they will have to learn together. We cant turn back time now either. What has happened has happened, now we gotta deal with the present issues and how to have 2 states living together in peace. Here is the problem i have with the right of return; what are they going to return to? Are we going to see people kicking out Israelis and taking over thier homes? Wouldnt they rather migrate to the new Palestinian state? Most of the people who would return are dead now...

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: damirc
Posted 2012-11-30 19:08:24 and read 2737 times.

Quoting caliatenza (Reply 80):
Look, the point is..no body is leaving now..they will have to learn together.

Fully agree, however need to clarify a few facts (just for posterity and not to skew the reality of the situation).

Quoting caliatenza (Reply 80):
ive seen this video before, as part of a bigger piece on the issue. Ive also read that the majority of Palestinians were not forced from their homes..rather the Arab countries told them to leave on the promise that they will drive out the Jews and get all their land back.

Benny Morris, one of the new historians who had the chance to go through official Israeli documentations states that approximately 350.000-400.000 Palestinians before the Arab armies 'invaded' (of those 100.000 left between 12/1947 and 03/1948 and a further 250.000-300.000 left between 04/1948 and 07/1948). A good overview of the waves of Palestinian refugees can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_...dus#Morris.27s_Four_Waves_analysis . For the causes he postulates that approximately 55% of the refugees fled directly because of the Haganah/IDF operations and their respective operations, a further 15% was directly causes by dissident Jewish organizations (Irgun/Lehi). This was the status in June 1948. I am just stating this to counter the original statement. So the old myth that the Arabs followed foreign leaders advice is not fully true.

Quoting caliatenza (Reply 80):
Here is the problem i have with the right of return; what are they going to return to?

Unfair as it may seem I would advocate for them to return to Palestine and not Israel. Israel did have to absorb 800.000 of Jewish refugees from other Muslim countries after 1948. It is my opinion that Israel with this "paid in full" with regards to the returning Palestinian refugees. This however does not absolve them from financial liability for the lands misappropriated from the Palestinians (however, they have the same right for financial restitution from Muslim countries where Jews were expelled from).

I do feel that the first thing that should ideally happen now is no sudden moves from either side (well, Israel and their 3000 new building in the West Banks did jump the trigger there already) - including no ICC indictments. Ideally a mutuall general amnesty would be helpful to bridge the interim eriod, and any new attacks would need to be persecuted by both parties jointly.

What also needs to enter the picture is the teaching of each others histories - just as much as the Israelis are oblivious to the Nakba and it's effects so are the Palestinians mostly oblivious to the Shoah and it's toll. Of course, this will take time - but any constructive movement even at a slow pace is preferrable to what was usual in the region.

Yes, I know - I'm too idealistic ... but I would think that for all the demonizing of their opponents in this conflicts have somehow forgotten that the other side represents humans also.

D.

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: victrola
Posted 2012-11-30 21:48:16 and read 2715 times.

I have yet to see anyone in Israel address the demographics problem that that country faces. If you consider the 1967 borders of Israel, roughly 20% of the people living in that area are Arabs. There are projections that this percentage could eventually go up to 30% of the population. So even if Israel goes back to its 1967 borders it has to deal with the fact that a significant minority of its population does not share its aspirations as a Jewish state. Arabs will always be second class citizens if Israel's intention is to be a Jewish state. Does anyone really think that these Arabs can ever feel like patriotic Israelis?

So now, Benjamin Netanyahu, in response to the UN vote decides to expand Israeli settlements in the West Bank. Is he too stupid to realize that with every expansion of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, the possibility of a 2 state solution diminishes. I would go as far as to say that at this point a 2 state solution is dead. In fact, I would say that the Palestinians would be better off rejecting a 2 state solution and accept Israeli annexation of the entire West Bank. In such a situation, it is very possible that Jews might eventually find themselves a minority in their own country.

Given such a situation, I would say that Palestinians have no motivation whatsoever to negotiate a settlement with Israel. With a significant minority or maybe even a majority of non Jews inside of its borders, Israel as a Jewish state is in serious trouble.

So I ask all of you supporters of the current Israeli policies, what exactly is your "final solution" for the Palestinian problem?

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: cws818
Posted 2012-11-30 22:06:40 and read 2710 times.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 5):
Quoting zrs70 (Thread starter):
3) How much of the land was purchased, how much was granted, how much was a result of war?

I'm pretty sure after both the first and second wars, the UN divided the land that was controlled by the Germans, Italians, and the old Ottoman empire (now Turkey) and the mandate set up Israel as a safe-haven for the Jews, apparently.

No.

Neither the Germans nor the Italians had land holdings in the Levant. After the First World War, Britain controlled what is now Israel and what was formerly referred to as the Trans-Jordan. France controlled what are now Syria and Lebanon.

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: PHX787
Posted 2012-12-01 11:20:05 and read 2656 times.

Quoting cws818 (Reply 83):
Neither the Germans nor the Italians had land holdings in the Levant. After the First World War, Britain controlled what is now Israel and what was formerly referred to as the Trans-Jordan. France controlled what are now Syria and Lebanon.

Wasn't the Trans-jordan held by Britain under a trusteeship or am I mistaken?

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: NAV20
Posted 2012-12-01 17:20:32 and read 2609 times.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 84):
Wasn't the Trans-jordan held by Britain under a trusteeship or am I mistaken?

Actually a 'mandate' from the League of Nations, PHX787.

Prior to the First World War the whole area - from the Turkish border to the Egyptian one - was part of the Turkish 'Ottoman Empire' for some hundreds of years. After Turkey's defeat in 1917, the British (who had 'liberated' both Palestine and the Transjordan) were 'mandated' to occupy both Palestine and the Transjordan (literally 'the land across the Jordan') and eventually establish governments etc. The French were mandated to occupy the area to the north, all the way to the Turkish border - the area that eventually became Lebanon and Syria.

Oddly enough, that was when the seeds were sown that resulted in the whole problem the region now faces. The British Mandate contained the following (with hindsight, 'fateful') paragraph:-

"Whereas the Principal Allied Powers have also agreed that the Mandatory should be responsible for putting into effect the declaration originally made on November 2nd, 1917, by the Government of His Britannic Majesty, and adopted by the said Powers, in favour of the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, it being clearly understood that nothing should be done which might prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

Actually, to the credit of the British, the original paragraph actually had an even more fateful passage in it - reading, "Recognizing, moreover, the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine and the claim which this gives them to reconstitute it their national home..." The British at least got that passage cut out, and some protections for the civil rights of non-Jews put in; but the implication was nevertheless clear. The British were 'mandated' to allow Jews to immigrate, and the local population of Palestine was 'condemned' just to put up with it.

As a matter of fact, the local rulers of the Transjordan saw the dangers of that clause, and negotiated its removal from the part of the Mandate that referred to them - but the Palestinians ended up 'stuck with it.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British...e_for_Palestine_(legal_instrument)

My own feeling is that most of the legislators of the time probably thought of 'Arabs' as just nomadic herders riding round the desert on camels. It's tragic that they didn't recall their own Bible readings, which proved that Palestine had been a highly-developed and urbanised country, complete with majestic cities like Jerusalem, two thousand years ago, at the time of Christ......... But they didn't - and, way back in 1917, they laid the foundations for the terrible (and literally 'bloody') mess that the region now finds itself in.

[Edited 2012-12-01 17:21:41]

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: Revelation
Posted 2012-12-02 09:58:01 and read 2551 times.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 79):
You can't have watched the video, Revelation? It's fully covered in that; some neighbouring countries sent troops in in an attempt to protect the Palestinian civilians who were being forcibly driven out of their homes by the hundreds of thousands?

Indeed, my reference to "your narrative" meant your text in your post not the video, which I did not have the chance to watch before my posting.

Now that I have, indeed it does point out that the period in the weeks and months if not years before the Israel's declaration of independence were for the Israelis a period of much preparation, and that forced evictions had already started before the declaration, something the Wiki reference I posted did not cover. Even though the neighboring armies did invade the day after independence, it seems they were ill prepared and thus not a strong force.

Quoting NAV20 (Reply 85):
Prior to the First World War the whole area - from the Turkish border to the Egyptian one - was part of the Turkish 'Ottoman Empire' for some hundreds of years. After Turkey's defeat in 1917, the British (who had 'liberated' both Palestine and the Transjordan) were 'mandated' to occupy both Palestine and the Transjordan (literally 'the land across the Jordan') and eventually establish governments etc. The French were mandated to occupy the area to the north, all the way to the Turkish border - the area that eventually became Lebanon and Syria.

Yes, but it seems there was another 'story behind the story' based on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wb6IiSUxpgw which was one of the videos on the same page as the one you posted, and IMHO is worth watching.

It seems the Hashemite (sp?) tribe were strong partners of the British pre-Mandate, and had been pushed off a large part of their territory by the Sauds, with the result that the British gave them favored treatment over the Palestinians in Trans-Jordan, and they still are in power in modern Jordan.

This is a big reason why Jordan is of two minds when it comes to Palestinians: they want the Palestinians to have rights, but they don't want to give them enough power so that they can topple the existing power structure in Jordan. This is kind of like how Turkey did not want the Kurdish part of Iraq to become a separate nation, they knew it would cause the Kurds on the Turkish side of the border to want to be a part of that new nation.

Egypt too isn't the strongest partner the Palestinians could have. Egypt's control over Sinai is pretty weak and the Egyptians fear that open borders with Gaza would cause the Bedouins in Sinai to have even more power then they now have. Note we haven''t seen Egypt rush their army to the Gaza border, instead we see them take the useful role as mediator, which is easy since Hamas is a part of the Muslim Brotherhood that is now in power in Egypt.

So, the Palestinians really can't catch a break: all of their neighbors have their fears about what would happen should a new Palestinian nation be formed, even though they all say they favor the two state solution.

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: par13del
Posted 2012-12-02 10:59:11 and read 2538 times.

Quoting damirc (Reply 81):
I am just stating this to counter the original statement. So the old myth that the Arabs followed foreign leaders advice is not fully true.

Hence the issue keeps going around and around, did it happen or did it not, but........

Quoting damirc (Reply 81):
Benny Morris, one of the new historians who had the chance to go through official Israeli documentations

Is there anyone else who also had access to the records verifying his numbers, usually verification by another source is standard.

Quoting damirc (Reply 81):
Israel did have to absorb 800.000 of Jewish refugees from other Muslim countries after 1948.

So tit for tat, right to return is available for both sides, do the Israelis include this as a chip when negotiations are taking place?

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: damirc
Posted 2012-12-03 03:31:26 and read 2454 times.

Quoting par13del (Reply 87):
Is there anyone else who also had access to the records verifying his numbers, usually verification by another source is standard.

Unfortunately I can't answer to that question. His figures however have been generally accepted as truthful and I haven't seen them disputed from either side (the Israeli left or right), so I would consider them to be reasonably good.

Quoting par13del (Reply 87):
So tit for tat, right to return is available for both sides, do the Israelis include this as a chip when negotiations are taking place?

While it's not directly Palestinian fault, I do feel that Israel should bring this to the negotiating table as the counter to the Palestinian right of return.

D.

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: moo
Posted 2012-12-03 04:49:44 and read 2430 times.

Quoting par13del (Reply 87):
So tit for tat, right to return is available for both sides, do the Israelis include this as a chip when negotiations are taking place?
Quoting damirc (Reply 88):
While it's not directly Palestinian fault, I do feel that Israel should bring this to the negotiating table as the counter to the Palestinian right of return.

Which would be deliberately pointless because the Palistinians do not have the ability to grant "right of return" for other countries.

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: 777way
Posted 2012-12-03 05:05:45 and read 2428 times.

^ Not just that, no muslim country would want Israeli nationals most of who are second and third generation Israelis, returning to their countries, also the Palestininas will be returning to their homes in their lands, not settling in lands now making up Isreal.

So the right of return chip is not valid for either of the two.

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: damirc
Posted 2012-12-03 05:59:48 and read 2410 times.

Quoting moo (Reply 89):
Which would be deliberately pointless because the Palistinians do not have the ability to grant "right of return" for other countries.

No, but they could accept the fact that 800.000 Palestinians were displaced just as well as 800.000 (now) Israelis were displaced and take that into account. (ie: not insisting on unrealistic right of return).

Quoting 777way (Reply 90):
^ Not just that, no muslim country would want Israeli nationals most of who are second and third generation Israelis, returning to their countries, also the Palestininas will be returning to their homes in their lands, not settling in lands now making up Isreal.

Erm. I never said they were to move back (and doubt they would). The point being that both sides will need to accept that harm has been done to them.

D.

Topic: RE: Questions In The Israel/ Palestine Conflict
Username: 777way
Posted 2012-12-03 06:04:19 and read 2406 times.

Fair enough, to acknowledge that would be a good move.


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/