General Israel/Palestine discussion thread

[bigjelmapro]

SOME Palestinians, you are definitely not speaking about all Palestinians.

Most Palestinians want Peace, most Israelis want peace.

They just need to tell their leaders to get off their high horses, stop their political posturing, and get it done.

The major differences of what 'peace' is to Israelis and Palestinians are very different. 'Peace' with Israel to the Palestinians, which has been cited before several times, is the cessation of violence, the millions of supposed refugees flood Israel under their maximalist demands that would see Israel disappear as a state. That is peace to the Palestinians, but not to Israel, which is peaceful co-existence.

Moral equivalence fail again...

 

[bikerdruid]

So the war to destroy Israel isn't evidence of that? Their alliances with Nazis in WWII isn't evidence of that?

ww2 was 70 years ago.
there is probably none of that crew still alive.
the nazis of ww2 did not even know about israel.

 

[Virus]

ww2 was 70 years ago.
there is probably none of that crew still alive.
the nazis of ww2 did not even know about israel.

They knew Jews were immigrating there and they knew the British agreed with the principle of a Jewish state. They formed alliances with Arab militias and underground movements to prevent the creation of a Jewish state, which they saw as a diabolical Jewish plot.

 

[HoverBoarder]

The major differences of what 'peace' is to Israelis and Palestinians are very different. 'Peace' with Israel to the Palestinians, which has been cited before several times, is the cessation of violence, the millions of supposed refugees flood Israel under their maximalist demands that would see Israel disappear as a state. That is peace to the Palestinians, but not to Israel, which is peaceful co-existence.

Moral equivalence fail again...

Refugees don't have to return to Israel, they could go to the newly formed Palestinian State with any new citizens to the Country of Israel being up to the discretion of the Israeli government.

That is still definitely peace.

That is the easy part.


The hard part is Jerusalem and getting all of the violent jihadi Palestinian groups to play ball. If the new Palestinian States declared Jerusalem their capital in name only, and had enough freedom and sovereignty to oppose violent Palestinians who would muck it up for them, than they could have a stable peaceful situation.

Once a viable Palestinian State is created, than the Countries that are openly hostile to Israel like Syria, Lebanon, and Iran, as well as the Countries that are partially hostile to Israel like Egypt and Jordan would have a lot less cause and reason to be enemies of Israel. Anti-Semitism in these countries would still cause many of them to still be opposed to the Israeli State, but they would have a lot less political justification cover to base it on.


Peace is not something that could not be achieved, and it would require the Israelis as well as the Palestinians to get serious about it for it to happen. It is in both of their economic/security self interests to do so, and it is in the interests of all the Countries in the region and around the world as well.

 

[HoverBoarder]

Only one in three Palestinians in Gaza/West Bank want a two state solution. 73% agree with 'hadith' quoted in Hamas Charter about the need to kill Jews hiding behind stones, trees.

http://www.jpost.com/DiplomacyAndPolitics/Article.aspx?id=229493

If this doesn't reflect reality for whatever reason, Palestinians should stop electing genocidal "freedom fighters" as their government.

No argument there. Hamas was an idiotic mistake for the Palestinians.

 

[Mycroft]

Yes and ex slaves directly stopped hating ex slave owners once slavery was outlawed.

the real world is not as simple as you seem to belief.

Except when you look around at the world for actual examples of how oppressed people behave after the oppression ends, you see a lot less of this hate and anger and a lot more of people just wanting to put things behind them so they can get on with their lives. Look at the end of slavery in the United States and the end of Apartheid in South Africa, and those are examples where people were outright oppressed for their race and not peoples that were suffering the privations of war in which they participated in prolonging.

I think it's racist to assume that Arab peoples must inevitably be obsessed with hatred and revenge. People don't really behave that way. The hate culture that exists among the Palestinian-Arab peoples is an artificial construct that's maintained through huge efforts from the organizations that control them.

 

[WildCat]

so the only reason for a war is hatred?
and the alliance with the Nazis was the will of the Palestinain and Arab people?
no i dont think it supports your claim.

If their words and deeds don't convince you I don't think anything will.

 

[WildCat]

ww2 was 70 years ago.
there is probably none of that crew still alive.
the nazis of ww2 did not even know about israel.

Try to keep up with the conversation. We were specifically talking about the pre-Israel period.

 

[Mycroft]

I've been saying that all along. I think most of the people there are over it all, and just want it to end. Their lives on both sides will be better with this over and done with.

So why do you personally only want to draw blame back to Israel? Doesn't that perpetuate the conflict?

 

[DC]

If their words and deeds don't convince you I don't think anything will.

who is "their"?

 

[WildCat]

who is "their"?

All those who tried to destroy Israel from the moment of its inception.

To say that it had nothing to do with deep-rooted anti-semitism is like saying the US Civil War had nothing to do with slavery.

Hamas' founding document states that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is true, and calls for the genocide of Jews. They won a majority of the vote in Gaza, and have a lot of support in the WB as well. And it's not like there's much, if any, support of Palestinian political parties that advocate peace, love, and understanding with Israel.

 

[DC]

All those who tried to destroy Israel from the moment of its inception.

To say that it had nothing to do with deep-rooted anti-semitism is like saying the US Civil War had nothing to do with slavery.

Hamas' founding document states that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is true, and calls for the genocide of Jews. They won a majority of the vote in Gaza, and have a lot of support in the WB as well. And it's not like there's much, if any, support of Palestinian political parties that advocate peace, love, and understanding with Israel.

i don't say anti semitism hasn't played a role. but there were so many different factors involved its just an oversimplification like Bush's they atack us because they hate our freedoms.
pure propaganda. And Hamas surely was not only elected because of their anti semitic propaganda, it surely also played a role, but other factors were also involved. but i know you like a sinple view on complicated matters.

 

[Mycroft]

how many people would agree to let other people build a country on the land they consider theirs?

What land do you consider to be yours? Is it the land you own? Or do you consider yourself to be owner of all land in your country?

If an international treaty changed a border and some land that you owned became part of another country, but you still retained ownership, would you kill anyone over it?

Or if another treaty set aside some land as a national home for an oppressed people (the Roma, for example), would you kill anyone just because it changed the map of Europe a little?

I think when you say things like "land they consider theirs" that you need to define things like who "they" are, and what land they consider to be theirs and why they think they're entitled to make that claim.

 

[DC]

What land do you consider to be yours? Is it the land you own? Or do you consider yourself to be owner of all land in your country?

well i would consider all land within our borders to be ours. Not mine but ours. In case we would be invaded and ruled by lets say by Hans Adam 2.0,
and then Berlusconi comes and takes over, i still would consider the land within our current borders to be ours. And would not accept a ruling about it from others without the people voting on it.

If an international treaty changed a border and some land that you owned became part of another country, but you still retained ownership, would you kill anyone over it?

no, i think killing over it will not solve the dispute. But im clearly a minority in my country in regard to that.

Or if another treaty set aside some land as a national home for an oppressed people (the Roma, for example), would you kill anyone just because it changed the map of Europe a little?

no, but would not accept it without us voting on it, we are a direct democracy.

I think when you say things like "land they consider theirs" that you need to define things like who "they" are, and what land they consider to be theirs and why they think they're entitled to make that claim.

there is a reason i dont say, the land that is theirs or so. it is like claim against claim. and both are in some regards correct, Jews were there first but lost it. so i can fully understand their desire to get it back. and also see the need for them to have a Nation that is theirs, and it is the only place that makes sense in regards to history.
But i can also understand the people that don't want to give it back. it seems normal. no country does so. and i am not sure if i would vote to give my country back if we had taken it from someone that is still around as a people.

 

[IDB87]

well i would consider all land within our borders to be ours. Not mine but ours.

Here's the issue:

The land was Ottoman ruled until the English overthrew them. It became English ruled until they transferred it to the U.N. This whole time, no Palestinian land was stolen.

Jews were immigrating and transferring cash to Palestinian property owners (and Ottoman property owners), and receiving land in exchange. The idea that land was 'stolen' refers to when the total land ownership between Jews and Arabs became vastly skewed in the Jews favor (this is the 1947 U.N. Partition plan) when they received the southern half of the Mandate. But, everything south of Beersheba is what is called the Negev, which is essentially a desert wasteland that Israel is only now starting to utilize.

If you look at the 1947 Partition plan and compare it to the 1920-1948 British Mandate, you'll see that the borders for both states (excluding the Negev, since that was useless and the only ones using it were the Bedouins) were based on pre-existing Jewish and Arab owned land. You have small bits of Arab and Jewish land that end up in the opposite state, but for the most part it's an even split as far as revenue generating land is concerned for each party.

AFTER 1948 is when we can begin discussing actual land that was stolen.

We could start with Plan Dalet if we wanted to.

 

[Mycroft]

well i would consider all land within our borders to be ours. Not mine but ours. In case we would be invaded and ruled by lets say by Hans Adam 2.0,
and then Berlusconi comes and takes over, i still would consider the land within our current borders to be ours. And would not accept a ruling about it from others without the people voting on it.

Fair enough, but we’re talking about a place and time where the borders were in the process of being drawn, and those decisions were not being made by a direct vote. Do you think that makes a difference?

there is a reason i dont say, the land that is theirs or so. it is like claim against claim. and both are in some regards correct, Jews were there first but lost it. so i can fully understand their desire to get it back. and also see the need for them to have a Nation that is theirs, and it is the only place that makes sense in regards to history.
But i can also understand the people that don't want to give it back. it seems normal. no country does so. and i am not sure if i would vote to give my country back if we had taken it from someone that is still around as a people.

A two-state solution creates another Arab state, and preserves the current Jewish-Arab state. Isn’t that about as reasonable a compromise as we can get?

 

[DC]

Fair enough, but we’re talking about a place and time where the borders were in the process of being drawn, and those decisions were not being made by a direct vote. Do you think that makes a difference?






A two-state solution creates another Arab state, and preserves the current Jewish-Arab state. Isn’t that about as reasonable a compromise as we can get?

the decision being made not by vote makes a huge difference, i think.

i see a two state solution as the only possible solution.

 

[dtugg]

i see a two state solution as the only possible solution.

If Palestinians and the genocidal savages they have elected for a government wanted that, they could probably get it. But they don't. So Israel's hands are tied.

 

[DC]

If Palestinians and the genocidal savages they have elected for a government wanted that, they could probably get it. But they don't. So Israel's hands are tied.

it depends on the conditions.

 

[dtugg]

it depends on the conditions.

What conditions do you think that Palestine would accept? And most importantly, are these conditions even remotely reasonable?