6 in 10 Palestinians reject 2-state solution, survey finds

6 in 10 Palestinians reject 2-state solution, survey finds
By GIL HOFFMAN
07/15/2011 04:26

73% of 1,010 Palestinians in W. Bank, Gaza agree with 'hadith' quoted in Hamas Charter about the need to kill Jews hiding behind stones, trees.

Talkbacks (8)
Only one in three Palestinians (34 percent) accepts two states for two peoples as the solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, according to an intensive, face-to-face survey in Arabic of 1,010 Palestinian adults in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip completed this week by American pollster Stanley Greenberg. The poll, which has a margin of error of 3.1 percentage points, was conducted in partnership with the Beit Sahour-based Palestinian Center for Public Opinion and sponsored by the Israel Project, an international nonprofit organization that provides journalists and leaders with information about the Middle East. The Israel Project is trying to reach out to the Arab world to promote “people-to-people peace.” The poll appears to indicate that the organization has a difficult task ahead.

Respondents were asked about US President Barack Obama’s statement that “there should be two states: Palestine as the homeland for the Palestinian people and Israel as the homeland for the Jewish people.” Just 34% said they accepted that concept, while 61% rejected it. Sixty-six percent said the Palestinians’ real goal should be to start with a two-state solution but then move to it all being one Palestinian state.

Asked about the fate of Jerusalem, 92% said it should be the capital of Palestine, 1% said the capital of Israel, 3% the capital of both, and 4% a neutral international city. Seventy-two percent backed denying the thousands of years of Jewish history in Jerusalem, 62% supported kidnapping IDF soldiers and holding them hostage, and 53% were in favor or teaching songs about hating Jews in Palestinian schools. When given a quote from the Hamas Charter about the need for battalions from the Arab and Islamic world to defeat the Jews, 80% agreed. Seventy-three percent agreed with a quote from the charter (and a hadith, or tradition ascribed to the prophet Muhammad) about the need to kill Jews hiding behind stones and trees.

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

The actual % hardly matters, small armed groups have a defacto veto over any progress towards any sort of peaceful solution.

With respect to Obama’s proposal calling for Palestinian recognition of Israel as a Jewish state and the state of the Jewish people and Palestine as a Palestinian state, this poll you cited says:

34% said they accepted that concept, while 61% rejected it

Whereas a poll from PSR (from June) asks the same questions and says:

51% support and 47% oppose Obama's proposal

Link:

http://www.pcpsr.org/survey/polls/2011/p40efull.html

I think we'd have to dig a little deeper into both poll to try to explain the discrepancy there.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Interesting....I wonder how many of our Zionist friends here feel about the 1920 great Zionist plan for Jews to invade Palestine?....A very high % of Zionist anti-arabs dwelling together peacefully in a Muslim/Christian/Jewish state....

Oh that's right. They can't be bothered to explain or justify anything, especially why Palestinians should have been forced to accept Jewish immigrants when the rest of the world rejected such immigration.
.
.

I know it's hard to admit that something on the order of 100% of those Jews were actually seeking asylum from hatred and discrimination and were NOT actually being land stealing evil colonialists.

And using the rest of the world's bigotry to justify Palestinian bigotry is a pretty bad excuse. Your argument is pretty much: "Just because the rest of the world didn't want Jews doesn't mean Palestinians had to let those Jews into their historical homeland to escape persecution".

Classic.

World bigotry excuses Palestinian bigotry.

===========

I asked a while back what if you were in charge of Palestine back then and could allow Jews in. Would you? No answer.

And you also didn't answer whether you're for 2 states or one.

Now this is where you once again disappear like the rest of your friends here and avoid the "tough" questions, right?

You can dish it out but...

Have pre-1967 Israel to live in. That easily accomodates all such people and I wish them well. Almost none of the current settlers fit into that category, however. Most of them are in their fifties or younger and most just moved to the West Bank from Israel Proper.

Also, you don't see that many of the Holocaust survivors defending the Occupation and the Siege of Gaza.

but sometimes you i think you live in a different galaxy....

Also, you don't see that many of the Holocaust survivors defending the Occupation and the Siege of Gaza. <\i>

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You can't just assume that the survivors as a group are behind the hardline approach. Some would, but most have more humanity than that

i'm assuming nothing..i 'm just amused at how you use the word "most" as if you actually have some real information or as is more traditional with your posts, you just made it up.

and other hardline Israeli policies.

Here are some right here:

http://mondoweiss.net/2011/01/israeli-occupation-as-brutal-as-nazis-elkana-holocaust-survivor.html

http://www.unitedmethodistdivestment.com/LetterSupportIsraelis.htm

http://www.loonwatch.com/2011/02/holocaust-survivors-planned-talk-angers-jewish-leaders/

http://www.newworldorderreport.com/Default.aspx?tabid=266&ID=7355

(that isn't EVERY Holocaust survivor, and I never said it was, but that is a significant number just for a start, so I just proved I didn't make that up and you owe me an apology for the accusation.)

I don't make things up and I'll thank you to stop repeating that unjustifiably ugly accusation.

I've never posted anything that expressed personal malice or contempt towards you. It's only fair that you refrain from doing the same thing to me. My criticism of the Israeli government was never an attack on you as a person and, whatever you think of me, I strongly suggest, for the sake of your own mental health, that you give yourself some distance and set some boundaries between your notion of yourself and your sense of the state in which you live. You put yourself at risk, in my view, of far too much trauma and disappointment to allow yourself to see the state and you as an individual as being somehow inseparable.

No state is worth that. Anywhere.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

but i will give your credit for at least finding a few (of that i'm not surprised....) and i believe that this is the first time you actually showed some research. Next step is further understanding of word definitions.

5 is not a significant number when the total survivors were about 3,546,211.

as far as apologies go..i'm still waiting on yours....so since they are so important to you, i'll just keep on waiting.

The bombing thing has been addressed already. We're past that now. You can't still be holding on to that, for God's sake. it's enough that I admitted I could have used another word.

And see? I gave you examples and you said my examples don't count.

The total number of survivors as of 1948(which I believe is the figure you cited above)is beside the point. Not all of those people would have ended up in Israel. Not all of them would have had opinions on Israel(or anything else, since, from what I've read, a good number coped with life by withdrawing inward-a natural reaction, given the nightmare they'd experienced).

Those who died before 1967 would have had no opinion about the Occupation since it didn't exist prior to then. And I didn't say that none of the survivors supported the hardline position at all.

Clearly, I could have posted 40,000 links and you still wouldn't have said that was enough.\

The point was, that was what I found in only a couple of minutes online. Had I searched for two or three hours, I'd have found many, many more, in all liklihood.

Thus, I proved that I didn't make that up.

as you did some real research..but then you spoiled it by making a false conclusion.

5 witnesses does not make a significant number...and i have no idea how you define "many many more" i personally don't believe there are that many more, nor were there, but thats just a belief)

it seems to me that if you want to use the word "significant", then find that significant number of who agree with you...or claim that 5 is actually a significant number. (and i'l try to keep my initial reaction to myself)

-----

the apology you owe me?..its for claiming the my friend, my neighbor the general is "monster" (my definition) and would easily sacrifice me, my son, his sibling for advancement in his career. i take my friends seriously.

I get it that the guy down the block is your friend, but I wasn't singling him out. The comment was really more about the senior officer class...ok?

You were the one who dragged that particular general into this.

And no, you didn't congratulate me, you denied that I proved my point. You argued that because I only provided five names that that wasn't "many"(you also left the implication that everybody else in the group we were discussing supported the hard line status quo...even, I presume, the ones who died prior to 1967 and who, logically, wouldn't have had an opinion on the Occupation.

What I objected to was that, after I proved that such people exist, and that I could find that group through a cursory search, that still doesn't prove that a "significant" number of people within that group oppose the Occupation.

What, might I ask, would constitute a significant group?

Isn't it perfectly clear that whatever number of names I provided, you'd STILL say that the number I found was insignificant?

That's a big reason why I haven't bothered offering cites...you'd automatically dismiss any cites I provided about anything. No amount would ever be sufficient. So why should I bother when you've set yourself up as a one-man kangaroo court on the question of proof anyway?

I did prove that it cannot be assumed that today's remaining Holocaust survivor community cannot be considered to be in unquestioning support of the Israeli governments position on security issues. That's all I had to prove.

you are not accurate, you play very loose with words in attempt to prove your point. The survivors are an excellent example.

you first claimed, if i recall correctly that most would be against the present israeli govt. I had no doubt that those opinions exist and never questioned if they existed or not...i questioned your claim that it was "most"

i questioned your claim and you came up with 5 and said that was significant....

so are you actually still claiming that 5 out of 3.7 million is significant? or 5 out of the present survivors, about 800,000 is that also significant?
you want to know what would be significant to me?...how about 10%....that would be a sizable number...

if you meant to prove the "community" is not backing israeli policies i'm afraid your proof of 5 out of 800,000 doesn't really cut it.....how about learning what the world "proof" means? or find a 'few more."
_____

and yes you did single out the israeli office class even after i pointed out that one of his siblings serves with my son on the front line, and you continued to claim that generals will go to war (have their kids in danger) for their own career...and i suspect you still believe it. So i am asking you point blank: do you believe an officer for his own career will knowing start a war knowing full well that one or all of his kids will be on that front line....and very likely not come back home.
_________

you'd automatically dismiss any cites I provided about anything.
you've got to be kidding?...you never cite anything, ever!..that why the 5 you cited was a big thing, it was the first time you ever did!

There's a difference between many and most.

It's significant if large numbers within the group are speaking out. The only ones I have access to on that are the ones online. I could undoubtedly find more. The point is, if I found that number within minutes, you can't assume that the pro-hardline position has the universal support you'd like to pretend it has among that group.

And I do believe that, at a deep level, a lot of Holocaust survivors understand that their tormenters were the European Christians, not the Palestinians. Is it really so hard to believe that they'd understand that distinction?

I provided that cite and you immediately said that it was meaningless. I strongly suspect that if I posted a link where 80,000 Holocaust survivors had signed a petition saying they opposed the Occupation and the Siege of Gaza, you would dismiss that too(btw, that's a hypothetical and I'm not as yet claiming to have found such a thing).

As to the officer class...you're still insisting that the IDF officer class has a special level of humanity that the officer class in all other countries don't have...perhaps some do(and perhaps some in other countries also have more than you'd expect)but all I'm saying, at the heart of it, is that the IDF officer class is made up of human beings that are just as potentially susceptible to cynicism and careerism as those of any other. I haven't gotten into all of their heads. But it's dangerous to pin YOUR hopes as a common soldier on the notion that YOUR officers are saints. A lot of common soldiers, all around the world, have died thinking that. Even, I suspect, a fair amount in Israel.

yes there is a difference between many and most...but 5 survivors out of 800,000 is neither many or most...it doesn't even register. I would expect you can find more, but you have zero evidence to expect to find anything substantial (10,000).

Just dont confuse your beliefs with facts...thats what the religious do.
And I do believe that, at a deep level, a lot of Holocaust survivors understand that their tormenters were the European Christians, not the Palestinians. Is it really so hard to believe that they'd understand that distinction?

"deep down" as you put it, they understand that the Europeans simply did and industrial version of what the arabs had also done to jews pre, during and post WWII. Believe it all you want, just don't pretend that you can prove it.

and back to to the officer class as you put it....my officers aren't saints, some are idiots and fools, but theres a huge difference between being dumb and willing to sacrifice you kid for your own career advancement, That was my question to you and it was pretty straight forward. Perhaps in your world that requires a "special level of humanity" to not want to have your kid killed, thats not mine. To use your standard, you have proven to me that you believe our officers are monsters....as that is the only way i can describe such a person.

at least we know that you do infact make generalizations about certain types of people

Nonsense Question No 1.........No......But I would have allowed them into Britain, Australia or the USA.

If the 'Great Powers' of the time wouldn't accept persecuted Jews as immigrants, why fault the Palestinians for not doing what the civilized, richer and bigger states wouldn't do?.....Why not direct your anger to the right demons instead of blaming a backward people who had nothing to do with the European persecution of Jews?

Nonsense Question No 2....It is totally irrelevant to this board whether I am for two states or one.......I was not born in Palestine, I am not suffering Israeli occupation and it is not me that is being prevented from returning to my father's village.


The day you produce a 'tough' question, I will be the first to congratulate you....As for "disappearing like the rest of my friends"....Well, you will note that I had a long discussion with your friend Pelsar recently......After four weeks of not responding, I guess you could say he, like many other Zionists before him, has 'disappeared'

I admit that you, yourself seem to take pride in replying to everyone who makes a statement.......Is that something to be proud of?......A reasoned riposte might be of value.....Nonsensical demands like your above challenge are a waste of time.
.
.

1. My question was based on if you were in charge of Palestine back then, would you allow Jews in. You're not in charge of the world and can't make decisions for the UK, Australia and the USA. So is your answer still no?

2. Again, are you for 2 states or 1? Let's pretend again you make the call instead of the PA/Hamas. The end game is here - PEACE is within your grasp - and you get to decide. What will it be? Clinton Parameters? Olmert 2008 proposal? Geneva Initiative? Or do you insist on "justice" like Hamas would and demand one state?


Now please, just answer the questions as is. No excuses. Or will you disappear again?

What exactly could you not understand about my answers?....Let us take them one at a time..

Your nonsense Question 1:

My answer:........NO......To avoid you accusing me of being inhuman and antisemitic etc, etc, I added a simple statement of fact: ....But I would have allowed them into the USA, UK or Australia.

I then went on to ask you why you insisted on blaming the Palestinians for resisting Jewish immigration when there were so many richer, more-civilized and bigger states to blame?


Do you still claim that I didn't answer either of your questions?

In our little scenario you are only ruler of Palestine, not emperor of all earth.

Yes or No? Do you take them in or not?

=======

And you're still not answering whether you're for 2 states or 1, again as leader of Palestine NOW.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

...than stay true to your "progressive" values and allow them into Palestine.

So you wouldn't have acted any differently than the rest of the inhumane world of that time period. You being the progressive/leftist leader of Palestine....

Right?

What is the matter with your intellect?.

As someone who considers himself "progressive" I abhor the way the rest of the world refused to admit 1920s Jewish immigrants......There was no danger that Jewish immigrants would have swamped existing US or UK culture or attempted to carve out a Jewish state from the territory of the USA or the UK.

Palestine was completely different.....Palestinians were under British occupation, were poor, backward and the Jews had made it clear they intended to swamp Palestine with Jewish immigrants until "Palestine became as Jewish as England was English"......I am a peace-loving person but I can think of no greater justification for resisting Jewish immigration than a demand that they take over my country's culture.

There are times when even the keenest "progressives" must defend themselves, and the Zionist invasion of Palestine was one of those.


If you cannot accept that statement then you are a bigoted Zionist with no concept of fair and reasonable, and there is no point in discussing the matter further.....If you wish to call that "disappearing" then you are free to do so...I have more to do with my time the attempt to explain the blindingly obvious to a bigot.


PS: I note your original message has been deleted by the mods.......Does that mean you have been "disappeared?"
.
.

...you would have also refused.

And then what? Palestine wouldn't exist today as that area would be part of greater Syria or Egypt and as failed and backwards a society as those countries are. I can't see why, as a progressive ruler of Palestine, you couldn't be at least as accomodating as Emir Faisal was with Chaim Weizmann. Most of the Palestinian Mandate (around 80%) would have gone to the Palestinians and the Jews could have helped everyone in that region prosper.

Would that be so bad?

I'm also still waiting for an answer whether you're for 1 or 2 states now, being that you're the boss in Palestine and you can make that decision...

div class="excerpt"]Most of the Palestinian Mandate (around 80%) would have gone to the Palestinians and the Jews could have helped everyone in that region prosper.......Would that be so bad?

You realize you don't have a leg to stand on with any of your criticism anymore when your "progressive" instinct as Palestinian leader 70 years ago would have been to allow Jews to die rather than let them into Israel. See, you could have been different than the Palestinians of that time period and more "progressive" than the rest of the free world.

I appreciate your honesty, however.

Quoting Jabotinsky does nothing for you. The historical record speaks for itself and proves without any question Jews could have helped the region benefit culturally and economically. Those weren't just empty words but reality, and I believe you know it. Nevertheless, you made yourself clear: Palestine would never exist if it were up to you (as it would be part of greater Syria or Egypt), life in that region would be as bad as it is today in Syria, and many more Jews would be dead today or would never have been born. Your choice is tyrany, backwardness, and indifference to genocide over genuine progress and progressive/liberal/socialist ideals.

Thanks for answering 1 of the 2 questions....

LOL!....Six wars.....Four neighbouring states invaded.....Thousands killed......50 years occupation......Civilian bridges, power stations and airports destroyed.......Refugees murdered.....Cluster bombs killing kids.......

As you say.....the historical record speaks for itself!

...and the Palestinians whose cause you champion would be no better off than Syrians under Assad today.

Nice.

Besides, if you were the progressive leader of Palestine instead of Hitler's Mufti then why would there have been wars in the first place?

Possibly, but you are only speculating...There is at least an equal probability that Britain would have left a reasonably stable Palestine had the Haganah, Irgun and Stern Gang not been around.

I prefer to stick to facts....The creation of Israel has brought nothing but 60 years of war and occupation....Not something even Stalin, Hitler or Tojo could boast about.



If the Zionists persisted in their invasion of Palestine, even progressive Palestinian leaders would have had to resort to the defense of their homeland.....The choice of war or peace was in the hands of the invading Zionists and the Great Powers.....

You're in charge in 1947. All that has happened up to that point has happened and it's up to you to decide whether to accept the 1947 Partition Plan.

Do you do so or declare war?

You decide whether to go the Stalin, Hitler, Tojo route with 60 years of war, refugees, etc...

My Question:

You are the Zionist leader in the 1920s......The President of the USA expresses concern at the European Jewish refugee situation, and Congress, realizing it would be unfair to encourage massive Jewish immigration to Palestine, approves legislation allowing unlimited Jewish immigration to the USA.

1. Do you advise all threatened Jews to take advantage of this offer, knowing that they will probably do just that and that your plans for a Jewish homeland in Palestine will be still-born?

or

2. Do you try and persuade them that they should not immigrate to the USA but go to Palestine instead.....The Zionist dream of a homeland in Palestine being paramount
.

I'd go for option #2.

Jews can't trust their host nations to look after their best interests forever. History proves that. What the US offered in the 1920's could have been off the table by the late 1930's and 1940's. America was different back then.

Your turn...

:)

Your answer to my first question:

Thank you Shira......We are now clear.....Millions of Jewish lives could have been saved with unrestricted US immigration...Many Zionists guessed what was coming and lobbied Congress to remove the 1924 Immigration Law, but the possibility (not even certainty) of a Zionist 'homeland' means more to you than human lives.........Not very 'progressive' are you?.......


Your 2nd question:

My Answer: I would not accept the 1947 partition plan......But neither would I declare war on Israel.....Declaring war against Jewish immigrants in the circumstances of 1947 was futile, no matter how justified...... Many Jewish immigrants had served with the US/UK armies in WW2 and were militarily more powerful......My sort of progressives are more interested with saving lives and reducing misery than achieving political objectives.
.

The US did nothing during the late 1930's and early 1940's to save Jewish lives, so once again what you say could have been offered in the 1920's very well may have been off the table a decade or 2 later with a different administration and pressure from antisemitic groups (they weren't afraid of being open antisemites back then) questioning why Jews should get preferential immigration treatment over any other oppressed group. History shows nations that were at one time good to Jews turned later on.

I'd also like to believe millions could have been saved by going to the USA back in the 1920's and 1930's but unfortunately millions of Jews weren't looking to relocate to a safer place back then.

Now you see how ridiculous it is to speculate on future events......What we do know, is that the invasion of Palestine by Zionists, resulted in resistance from the local population, six wars, thousands killed, 50 years of occupation, refugees murdered, kids killed by cluster bombs......Not as bad as the Holocaust, of course, but not a record I would be proud of!


I think that brings our little game to a close....When you have had your final say of course!
.

...WRT whether the majority of Palestinians would have decided whether it's okay for Jews to immigrate into Palestine? They didn't have that right in the 1920's, 1940's, or even now.

Do you even believe it's progressive to let the majority (mob) rule? If the majority of Europeans have racist attitudes vs. Muslims and want to go all Jim Crow on them, does that mean the leadership should acquiesce? It just appears you're bending over backwards defending racist or bigoted attitudes.

The Jews went through all the proper channels back in the day with the Ottoman and British leadership of the time, even Faisal Husseini, to establish a state that would benefit everyone. There was no option to go to the people and ask for a referendum so I'm not sure why you're still arguing Zionism is illegitimate, racist, and colonialist when the Jewish leadership of that time did everything more legally and ethically than any other state that has come into existence, before or afterwards.

You say it's futile to speculate, but isn't that what you're doing attempting to procure a democratic referendum from Palestinians that has never existed in the Arab world?

I suspect that in order to right the "wrongs" of historic Zionism, you're for a one state solution. Otherwise, why bring up the evils of zionism but advocate for 2 states, essentially legitimizing Zionism? That said, even if you're for one secular democratic state - which sounds good - what if the "majority" of Palestinians wish to go with a dictatorship instead? What then? Have you really thought this out?

I understand your conclusion that you would not have felt oblgated to allow Jewish refugees into Palestine. More to the point, I'm not interested in playing a game of "gotcha" where I try and prove that your views demonstrtae anti-semitism. But I think the issue is a lot more complex than you are giving it credit for and it deserves more consideration.

For instance, you said, I then went on to ask you why you insisted on blaming the Palestinians for resisting Jewish immigration when there were so many richer, more-civilized and bigger states to blame?

We can blame anyone obviously, the point of going to Palestine was that the Zionists already had gone through the trouble of obtaining all the advance permission you could expect. Support from the British, the League of Nations, the Faisal–Weizmann agreement, etc. Consider the following quote from Emir Feisal, son of Sherif Hussein, and the leader of the Arab movement.

We Arabs, especially the educated among us, look with the deepest sympathy on the Zionist movement. Our delegation here in Paris is fully acquainted with the proposals submitted yesterday by the Zionist organization to the Peace Conference, and we regard them as moderate and proper.

The Jews could go to Palestine because they had a close connection to the area already. There already existed a population of Jews going back thousands of years. They had been buying land and building infrastracture there for decades. Their existence did nothing but benefit the community already living there economically. And realisically, no state existed there yet! They COULD go there to build a homeland. Even if they were accepted into Australia, their well-being would henceforth always depend on the good-nature of their hosts. Self-determination was everything.

By the time Jewish refugees were attempting to enter Palestine in sizable numbers the movement of Zionism was several decades old and already in full swing. At this point we started to see the different factions of Arab Nationalism really some into form. The single Nation idea was essentially murdered in its sleep by the West and every smaller faction within it was forced to jockey politically for influence over the changes that were already occurring. In short, Palestinian Nationalism only now started to emerge as a reaction from the Arabs to a fear of getting the short-shrift because of the exploding Jewish population. This was expressed mostly in the form of anti-semitic pamphlets saying stuff like, "The Jews are going to blow up Al Aqsa and throw all Arabs out of the country!" Then as now anti-semitism was used as a bullhorn to gather constituents around a single issue and garner increased political support for themselves.

Palestinian Nationalism itself was a reaction to Zionism. Had the Palestinians been absorbed by Syria or Jordan (as many were), it seems unlikely to it would have even emerged. This does not make it any less legitimate IMO, just so we're straight on that. But to deny Jewish people immigration rights to an area that was legally developed by Jews for JUST this exact purpose (to rescue Jews facing genocide), because of latent anti-semitism (yet in the name of justice), seems to me the height of irony. Allowing a Jewish homeland in no way pre-empted a Palestinian one, and no one can argue that there was a lack of Arab-inhabited land available. To argue that the rights of the Arab inhabitants (while ignoring the wishes of the Druze, Bedouin, Jewish, etc people there only because they tended not to riot in opposition), to indulge their xenophobic wishes by outlawing Jewish immigration while encouraging limitless Arab immigration, seems to be an exercise in populist racism. Worse, to outlaw selling land to Jews in an attempt to limit their influence embodies the phrase, "Tyrrany of the majority." Palestine was not yet a state, however their philosophy was less constructed around ideals for themselves as it was fixated on denying legitimacy to non-Arabs and other "outsiders."

Yet I assert that they had no right themselves to determine who could immigrate and who should be barred. The land was not theirs by magical decree. They lived there. On SOME of it. What right did they have to demand that their Jewish neighbor be prohibited from buying land that was owned by no one? Or say that his brother should be prevented from immigrating to escape death in Poland, while his own brother from Egypt be welcomed?

They were not yet a state. Merely being Arab should not be the key qualification for making such rules. It was then, but how can you support it now? Would you have also outlawed the immigration of Arab people? Or were economic refugees from Egypt OK while Jewish ones from Poland were not?

Was Sheriff Hussein a Palestinian?........Were the Palestinians represented in Paris?.....Did the Zionists take note of the increasing Arab riots against Jewish immigration?......Did the Zionists take note of the conclusions of the 1919 King-Crane Commission?



So what you are saying is that it was OK to force immigration on a poor defenceless people (Only 15% of Palestinans were Jewish and I'm not sure even those wanted to see massive Jewish immigration!) simply because Jewish connections with the US/UK allowed it to happen......Doesn't every people (state or no state)have the right to reject immigration if that is the will of the majority of the people?


Got to stop there, will come back to your other points as soon as I can.
.

Was Sheriff Hussein a Palestinian?........Were the Palestinians represented in Paris?

Sheriff Hussein wasn't a relevant player here, Emir Faisal was. And no, of course he wasn't a Palestinian, he was a member of the Hashemite dynasty. Yes, the Palestinians were represented in Paris, by Emir Faisal himself. As the soon-to-be king of Greater Syria (which included Palestine), he represented the entire region. I get the feeling that you feel the Palestinians should have been given more direct representation of some kind. (And it is known that Faisal looked down on the Palestinians, considering them bumpkins.) But Palestine was just a part of Syria at that point, it was not yet a nation defined by a specific political movement. Who would have represented them, and for what purpose would they have been there?

Did the Zionists take note of the increasing Arab riots against Jewish immigration?

I am sure that they did. If anything those riots reinforced the arguments supporting a need for Zionism. As soon as the Jews began emigrating to an area and bought land and asserted themselves economically there was a backlash that immediately resorted to the most hateful (yet familiar), of anti-semitic rhetoric. Pamphlets accused the Jews of planning to subjegate the Arabs living there so they could blow up Al Aqsa and rebuild their own temple. Thus reframed as self-defense against genocidal interlopers the riots did not target Zionists per say, but any Jew. And the Jews at hand were the ones who had been living there for centuries. Their stores were broken. There were massacres. Hebron, a city with a history of continuous Jewish occupancy stretching back over thousands of years was ethnically cleansed overnight. It proved the Zionists case. The Jews would always be seen as the "other." Without self-determination, they would always continue to live solely by the good graces of their hosts.

So what you are saying is that it was OK to force immigration on a poor defenceless people

This is a very weird way to describe the situation IMO. Firstly, the Arabs were far from defenseless. They sustained a three year long uprising that resulted in the severe curtailment of Jewish immigration, had the selling of property to Jews outlawed, among other anti-semitic concessions done to mollify the Arabs. The Arabs also committed pogroms against the Jews for years before the Yishuv organized some kind of defensive measures. Next, at the point in time we're discussing, the Jewish immigration was primarily beneficial to Palestine AND the Palestinians. But mostly, I just find it really weird to characterize people such as terrified refugees fleeing the Holocaust as the colonial oppressors while casting the Palestinians as victims of some kind of unprovoked violence or injustice (that was wholly unrelated to their own actions.)

Doesn't every people (state or no state)have the right to reject immigration if that is the will of the majority of the people?

The short answer: No, of course not.

States obviously have that right. The majority ethnicity of some randomly defined space within a larger area that's being actively, legally governed by someone else does not. You are advocating tyranny of the majority, otherwise known as mob rule. The Arab Palestinians WERE a majority, sure. Should this mean that they should have the right to institute policies that favor only Arabs, with the threat of rioting and killing if their demands are not met? (ie: The Great Arab Uprising that resulted in the White Paper.)

Palestine is a unique area. You have many different groups of people there, some even have overlapping spheres of identity, ie: Arab Christians, Palestinian Jews, etc., and all have ancient histories connecting them to the land. So Arab Muslims are the dominant group... so what? I reject the notion that this means all of Palestine is theirs by birthright. Or that they have the right to deny other nations of people the right to live there. They simply did not have sovergienty over the land. Jerusalem's majority population was Jewish since the 1800s. Does this mean that the Jews should have been granted the right to deny non-Jews entry? Of course not. Aside from this, the demands they made were both bigoted and heartless. Better that the Jewish refugees from Europe die than the Arab Palestinians be forced to share the land with them.

Yes, they should......Any leader looking down on a people he was about to hand over to be governed by aliens is no fit representative of theirs!



How about prominent Palestinian citizens?
eg Dajani, Aref who was Mayor of Jerusalem and President of the Muslim-Christian Association.
eg Darwaza, Izzat, who set up The Palestinian Society.



What do you mean “need for Zionism?”......You mean to over-ride the strong objections of the indigenous folk to Zionist immigration?
Surely the will of the majority of the indigenous people should be paramount?......They clearly did not want Zionist immigration…..Why was it forced on them?



You have a slight anachronism there.....The Holocaust was 20 years in the future….



Many 1920s Zionists referred to themselves as Colonial settlers.....The Zionist invasion of Palestine was indeed unprovoked by the victims.

More importantly, why do you say ‘weird’?.......What did the 1920s Palestinians do that the US/UK/Australia didn’t do?.....What I find weird and disgusting is that the Great Powers conspired to reject Jewish immigration when they were far richer, more powerful and had more space to settle persecuted Jewish immigrants……..I also find it weird that instead of castigating the 1920s Great Powers for their inhumanity, you chose to damn the Palestinians for doing no more than resisting a Zionist invasion……..Does a poor, defenseless people, have no right to self-defense or self-determination?



And you claim to be progressive!......Why should a majority of the indigenous inhabitants of an area not be able to prevent outsiders of an alien culture flooding into their land and declaring they intended to make their culture dominant, to rule the locals and to make them second-class citizens?......You accept that a sovereign state can reject outsiders, why do you think a people who had only just been freed from Turkish occupation should not have the same right?

Legally speaking (that is, assuming the members the League of Nations, which of course did not include the USA, were empowered to make International Law) you are right, but what an inhuman justification you have given for the Zionist invasion!

You will recall that at the 1919 Peace Conference, both President Wilson and the European leaders affirmed that “ …. all nationalities under Turkish rule were owed an absolutely unmolested opportunity of autonomous development." and promised “ …..peoples long oppressed by the Turks a free choice of future governments.”…..At least Wilson & co had a clear sense of the rights of indigenous peoples even if they failed to carry it through with regard to the Palestinians.

I suggest you are being rather partisan in this matter……Jabotinsky was more honest: "We can talk as much as we want about our good intentions; but they understand as well as we what is not good for them. They look upon Palestine with the same instinctive love and true fervor that any Aztec looked upon his Mexico or any Sioux looked upon his prairie. To think that the Arabs will voluntarily consent to the realization of Zionism in return for the cultural and economic benefits we can bestow on them is infantile."
.
.

OK, so we all know that the British screwed over the Arabs by making conflicting deals with both the French and them, eventually reneging on their committment to the Arabs. T.E. Lawrence (Lawrence of Arabia) negotiated with Faisal for Arab support of Britain against the Ottomans during WWI. The UK agreed in the Hussein-McMahon Correspondence that it would support Arab independence if they revolted against the Ottomans.

Faisal's dream was one of pan-Arab nationalism. He sought to end the strife between Sunni and Shia and unite all Arabs in a single independant state. This is what Wilson and the Europeans were speaking in support of during the Paris Peace Conference. Unbeknownst to Faisal the UK had a secret deal with France to divide the area into predicted spheres of influence between the two of them, (under a mandate system later reaffirmed by San Remo and the League of Nations), that negated most of the promises made to the Arabs.

However the Arab independence in question was not what you seem to be imagining... it was a single state of Greater Syria ruled by Faisal as King. He actually was King for a few months before the French took over; he even tried to fight them for about two seconds. He was later made King of Iraq as compensation. Point being you seem to be imposing a kind of 21st century ethical idealism upon a very different world. The fact that the Zionists went to and secured the support of Faisal indicates a certain level of good faith and commitment to long-term planning. (Interestingly, Faisal later withdrew his support after seeing the plight of the Palestinians. Though his support had always been contingent on the British following through on their promises to him and were thus very short lived.)

What do you mean “need for Zionism?”......You mean to over-ride the strong objections of the indigenous folk to Zionist immigration?

Actually, no. That's not what I mean at all. Zionism's justification had always been the constant threat of anti-semitism faced by Jews living as minorities, no matter where it was. Even in Jerusalem and Hebron, places where Jews had been living for thousands of years, Arab anger at Zionist immigrants was quickly directed upon the indigenous Jewish population, resulting in massacres against these innocent, indigenous, civilian Jews. If it wasn't Zionism then eventually it would have been something else. Something always happened to scapegoat the Jews with. The only true safeguard against persecution is self-determination.

Surely the will of the majority of the indigenous people should be paramount?

I disagree. The desires of any group always takes a backseat to ensuring the human rights for all. Even after considering that first, your statement is contingent on many other factors. A majority that sought the oppression or cleansing of minorities, or one that embraces misogyny, violence, fascism, religious extremism etc, fails to sway me with the simplistic argument "Majority rules!" Even the U.S. mitigates its democracy with institutions like the Electoral Congress, designed to lessen the influence of more poulous states over less populous ones.

They clearly did not want Zionist immigration…..Why was it forced on them?

I'll be the first to admit, life is not always fair. The Arabs, and especially the Palestinians got a very raw deal following WWI.

And you claim to be progressive!......Why should a majority of the indigenous inhabitants of an area not be able to prevent outsiders of an alien culture flooding into their land and declaring they intended to make their culture dominant, to rule the locals and to make them second-class citizens?.

Actually I don't claim to be progressive, I consider myself liberal, but that doesn't matter. This second statement however, it illustrates a key difference between our understandings of the conflict up until this point. When were the Zionists "declaring they intended to make their culture dominant, to rule the locals and to make them second-class citizens?" Because if accurate your argument gains a lot if weight. However this was not something that I saw in any of the agreements or major statements made.

What did the 1920s Palestinians do that the US/UK/Australia didn’t do?.....What I find weird and disgusting is that the Great Powers conspired to reject Jewish immigration when they were far richer, more powerful and had more space to settle persecuted Jewish immigrants……..I also find it weird that instead of castigating the 1920s Great Powers for their inhumanity, you chose to damn the Palestinians for doing no more than resisting a Zionist invasion

Here is a key difference between our viewpoints. I believe that the Zionists had a right to settle in Palestine. Israel was the birthplace and has since been considered the physical home of the Jews forced into a diaspora. Jews have been living there for tens of centuries, they are merely not a majority. This does not invalidate their rights to live in (or return to), there homeland. The Jews were a nation without a state for centuries, considered outsiders in virtually all other societies (to varying extents.) But following WWI they had a slim window of opportunity to retun to their homeland.

You keep referring to "self-defense" from an "invasion." But there was plenty of land there to share. The US/UK/Australia were all existing states that the Jews had no historical connection with. Jews who moved to Israel were (for the vast majority), not seeking to subjugate the indigenous people. Their presence (while admittedly problematic on some fronts), DID benefit everyone living there in many ways. Proof exists in the fact that the flow of Arab immigrants reversed direction following the Zionists arrival; they began arriving instead of leaving. The threat faced by the Palestinians was not physical, political or economic, it was social. In other words the threat was one of intense change... which was assured to occur. And I understand why they would fear this change. This was a relatively isolated part of the world. Change happened slowly. But now their whole way of life was being drastically altered and they had no control over what direction it took. Unable to compete with modern farming methods many providers whose families had been farming the land for centuries now had to abandon their farms and move to the city to support their families. And the Zionists were notoriouly poor at integrating themselves, doing little to alleviate their neighbors' concerns. It is unsurprising that there were politicians like Haj Amin al-Husseini who didn't hesitate to exploit this situation in his jockeying for power.

Incidentally, that statement by Jabotinsky that you think of as more honest than others... that was almost assuredly made to support his belief that negotiating with the Arabs is futile and the only way to obtain security and true self-setermination was by ethnically cleansing non-Jews on a massive scale and killing anyone who resists. I definitely think it's weird to describe ME as partisan as compared to someone like Jabotinsky. Like, Twilight Zone weird.

Thank you for the history of the UK/France/Faisal........At least we agree on the background facts!.....For simplicity, I will reduce our disagreements to two key differences:


I believe that statement to be true........Let’s see if I can convince you!

Weizmann ... “Our intention is to establish a society so that Palestine is as Jewish as England is English or America is American.”
....A clear case of wishing to make his culture dominant in Palestine wouldn’t you agree?

Hertzl.... “Our goal is to consolidate world Jewry into a sovereign political entity which will provide an economic and social solution not only for the Jews but for the entire world.”.
.....”Sovereign political entity”......Doesn’t that mean either ‘transferring’ or ruling the locals?

Lord Rothschild (he sent the initial draft of the Balfour declaration to Balfour).....“His Majesty's government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may 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.".
.....You will note that the political status of Jews was to be protected, but not the political rights of the existing non-Jews in Palestine......Is that not a clear indication that the Zionists saw the indigenous Arabs as second-class citizens?

Are you convinced now of the accuracy of my statement?



You say yes.......I say no.

The only connection most Zionists had to Palestine was a cultural one of 2,000 years ago...None of them could be sure that their antecedents ever lived in Palestine....Compare that with Israel’s rejection of the claim of Arab Palestinians to return to their villages even though some of them still have the title deeds to the house where their fathers and grandfathers were born.


Considered the physical home?.....Half the world’s Jew live outside Israel......Over two million Jews chose to go to the US between 1890 and 1924....Had US immigration laws not stopped prevented them, no doubt another million would have chosen to go there rather than support the Zionists’ objective.


Very true, but, the European Ashkenazim Zionists were not the same as the Arabic-speaking Sephardi indigenous Palestinian Jews......’Homeland’ to me means the land where you were born or your father or grandfather was born....’Homeland in Palestine’ is just a piece of Zionist propaganda and should carry no weight in determining the right of Zionists to immigrate to Palestine.


So why was massive Zionist immigration forced on them?..


Untrue.......1920s Palestine was far more densely populated than the USA, Australia or the Argentine....The fact is that Zionists were determined to re-create Eretz Yisrael irrespective of the wishes of the locals.....They cared nothing for the fact that massive Zionist immigration would inevitably remove the possibility of the indigenous Palestinians to achieve self-determination.

The Australians had plenty of space but they exercised their basic right of self-defense against a likely Japanese invasion......’plenty of space’ is no justification for what the Zionists did.



So a 2,000 year historical connection was more important than preserving the rights of Palestinians?....Was it a moral decision of the Zionists when they knew that their plans for a massive Zionist immigration would inevitably lead to domination of the locals and remove the possibility of them achieving self-determination?......Were they ignorant of the conflict that was likely to ensue, a conflict which has lasted a 100 years and resulted in the deaths of thousands?



Not true of the Zionist leaders – See Key difference No 1


Untrue.......The Palestinians’ political rights were being removed.


You seem to justify the Zionist takeover of Palestine on the grounds that it gave the Zionists power over their destiny......In the process of doing that they removed the same power from the indigenous inhabitants!.......Where is the morality in that?

You say you consider yourself a ‘liberal’ ie “...one who has a belief in the importance of liberty and equal rights.”.....In what way were the Zionists bringing liberty or equal rights to Palestine natives?

Shaktimaan

I have taken the liberty of copying the message you posted on my little debate with Pelsar to here on “6 in 10 Palestinians reject 2-state solution – SHIRA” to avoid confusion.

The essence of your of your concern is that the pre-WW1 residents of Palestine were not a state and had no right to reject Zionism.

1.) Considering only the morality of the situation, why is an ‘area’ having the status of a state any different from an ‘area’ which does not have that status through no fault of the indigenous residents living there?

2.) Had Palestine been a state pre WW1, would the Palestinian government have had the right to reject Zionist immigration?

1.) Considering only the morality of the situation, why is an ‘area’ having the status of a state any different from an ‘area’ which does not have that status through no fault of the indigenous residents living there?

I think there is a tremendous difference. There are a few way that nation-states are created. The commonly recognized way is when a group of people who consider themselves a seperate nation band together to build their own country. In the case of the middle east, outside forces declared boundaries based largely on their own interests... a state like Iraq for instance. It was several different groups thrown together, Sunni, Shia, Kurds, Assyrians and Turkmen with an appointed Hashemite leader. Prior to Iraq being established by the British there was no national identity of Iraqi people.

Such is also the case with pre-war Palestine. Quite simply there was no national Palestinian identity to consider. Palestinian nationality eventually grew out of opposition to Zionism. It was Zionism, the Nakba and the subsequent rejection of the refugees by Arab states that ultimately defined Palestine as a seperate nation. This in no way delegitimizes its existence or rights as a nation today. But we can not re-write history to support the fallacy that an independent nation made up of a dozen different ethnicities always existed there. Pre WWI most Arab Palestinians supported the idea of a greater Arab state. No unity based on proximity, (which united the disprate factions of the area), existed then.

You are essentially asking why no one considered the possibility of any arbitrary group deciding to form a nation at some point in the future. At a time when even known nations like the Kurds failed to obtain their own state your question ignores the political and conceptual realities of the day.

2.) Had Palestine been a state pre WW1, would the Palestinian government have had the right to reject Zionist immigration?

Had Palestine existed as a true nation-state, then IMO yes, the Zionists would have been obligated to follow the immigration laws of that state. I would hesitate to call that the "essence" of my argument though. It is a factor in it, certainly.

Had such a state existed it would have meant that an independent nation of people not only lived there, but built a functional country, with rules and a national infrastructure and recognized borders. But NONE of that existed. Yes, the POSSIBILITY of all that happening existed, but that possibility always exists, all over the place. You must acknowledge that it is not the same thing as actually declaring a nation and forming a state.

It is similar to the following: Jews were a natural majority in Jerusalem before WWI. Should the Arabs living around it in 1880 recognized the possibility that those Jews could MAYBE form their own city-state there at some point in the future, and afforded them the same rights as though they had already done so?

On edit: I was thinking about your general position and I may have realized something. One of the disconnects I feel between our opinions is that it seems to me that you are applying 21st century liberal ideals to an earlier and vastly different time. If your question is whether I think a movement like Zionism could ethically reproduce Israel's history today, I might be more inclined to agree that it could not. After all, it is a very different world.

But then I'm really not sure. I mean, what if the Kurds decided to declare a state in Iraq (to draw a very inexact comparison), and Kurds from Iran, Syria, and Turkey flooded in to take over part of the state. Ethically, (not legally), should they have that right? I dunno.

Quite true, but what you seem to be forgetting is that even when part of the Ottoman Empire, there was most definitely an ARAB identity in much the same way as there was an Indian and Burmese identity under the British Empire......Why should the Arabs not have the absolute right to self-determination in the Middle East, just like the Indians and Burmese had?.......There were probably a dozen or more different ethnicities in India and Burma too.




Good...We are at least in agreement on that point...The essence is therefore whether it was moral or immoral of the Zionists to take advantage of the Arabs because they were under occupation and could not be a state......In order to justify the Zionist invasion of Palestine, you need to show why Middle East Arabs should not morally be treated the same way as any other ex-colonial 'area'.

So far you have tried to justify it on the grounds that the Palestinians were not a 'grouping' and the mixed ethnicity of the area was somehow exceptional....I believe you need examine that argument rather more closely.



I would have no fundamental objection to the 1880 Jerusalem Jews forming a city state….Of course such a city state in 1880 would hardly be viable, but in principle, it is the will of the indigenous people in an area that should count.



That is exactly my question…..The I/P conflict needs to be resolved today…..However, I don’t consider the ethics in 1918 as greatly different from today, at least for some statesmen…..President Wilson being one, Balfour being the exact opposite…….More to the point is that if you accept that by today’s ethical standards, Zionism was wrong to do what it did, then surely it is not unreasonable to ask the Israeli PM of today to issue an apology for that wrong?.
.

Quite true, but what you seem to be forgetting is that even when part of the Ottoman Empire, there was most definitely an ARAB identity in much the same way as there was an Indian and Burmese identity under the British Empire......Why should the Arabs not have the absolute right to self-determination in the Middle East, just like the Indians and Burmese had?.......There were probably a dozen or more different ethnicities in India and Burma too.

Quite the opposite actually. I think this argument very much supports my POV over yours. You think that the formation of Israel was immoral while India's is an example to be lauded. Yet I think the differences you are pointing out are imaginary.

It is the inverse of your argument thus far... that the Palestinians should have been granted similar rights as a state, thus differentiating them from the surrounding Arab states. But first let's look at India.

India's partition was determined largely by the British, who decided where the borders would be and what state went to India versus Pakistan. The fact that only two countries were formed out of India is due to the political strength of Gandhi, Jinnah and Nehru, not because of any inherent "morality." It was no different than what happened in the Middle East. Exactly the same in this regard.

Now consider Bangladesh, which was then East Pakistan. It lay thousands of miles away from West Pakistan, it spoke an entirely different language and had a totally different culture. Aside from being mostly Muslim, it was just like Bengal. And once it became part of Pakistan it was subjugated until a bloody civil war won it independence. This is your idea of ethical self-determination? Why is it wrong for a Jewish person from Egypt to move to Paletine but it is fine for an entire state to be governed by an equally different people, who live thousands of miles away?

Millions of people fled across the India/Pakistan border during Partition in a bloody population transfer that eventually saw up to a million civilians killed. (And untold lost property and possessions by the survivors.) Consider that... a MILLION PEOPLE. In the many decades of the horrible I/P conflict, only 60,000 people have died. That's 6% of the people who died during India's creation.

Since then there has been an unending conflict over Kashmir resulting in many wars. You previously stated that Zionism was immoral if only because it led to so many wars and deaths. Yet India's history since claiming independence has been FAR worse, yet it is held up as a positive example to contrast Israel's "failure" against.

SO... how is this scenario preferable, or more ethical, than Israel's? And why have I NEVER heard that Indian independence was a horrible mistake, like I do with Israel every day?

Beyond that, let's consider the idea of the Middle East being generally Arab in character. I don't disagree with this premise, which is essentially Pan-Arab nationalism... a popular movement at the time and one that was supported in Palestine. In this scenario we would have seen the success of King Faisal and the enforcement of the agreement he made with the Zionists.

Under this concept, you have to explain why it is ethically superior for the Arabs to gain control over the ENTIRE middle east, while denying even a sliver of land to the Jews, who otherwise faced persecution and death. Merely because they form a majority there do they have an ethical responsibility to deny self-determination to anyone else? I would argue the opposite. That by claiming Arab nationality and sovereignty over the whole middle east they also gain a responsibility to see that the minority ethnicities have their rights equally met and supported. Just because they are greater in number should not imbue any one ethnicity with greater rights over all others.

Thank you for sending me a PM letting me know you were back in action.


Not true.....It matters not whether Palestine was made part of Syria or made a separate state, or even part of a pan-Arab state so long as that was the will of the people....My point is that it should have been decided by the will of the indigenous people, not by the Britain or an alien Zionist leadership and achieved by mass immigration against the will of the people.



True, but the UK did not attempt to force mass immigration of an alien culture on India or Pakistan......Palestine was unique in this respect



Simple answer...It isn’t ok for an entire state to be governed by a different people whether in West Pakistan or Palestine......I never said it was.



Is that a defense of Zionism?.....That it caused the deaths of ‘only’ 60,000 people?



You seem to be confusing the issue.....It is not a question of the Israel scenario being preferable to the India & Burma scenario......My point was that post WW1 many colonies demanded and got independence....Only the Arabs were forced to accept mass immigration from an alien culture.



Very true......But which minority ethnicity did you have in mind?......Did the Arabs try to reduce the rights of the indigenous Jewish minority?


This brings us back to my original question.....You have accepted that if the Palestinians were a state (or part of pan-Arab state) the Zionists would have no right to insist on immigration to that state....Why then, ethically, did the non-state Palestinians not have the same right?
Your response was: “...Quite simply there was no national Palestinian identity to consider. Palestinian nationality eventually grew out of opposition to Zionism. It was Zionism, the Nakba and the subsequent rejection of the refugees by Arab states that ultimately defined Palestine as a seperate nation.”.

I didn’t think that was relevant so I then asked you: “....whether it was moral or immoral of the Zionists to take advantage of the Arabs because they were under occupation and could not be a state?”

For me this is the crux of the matter.....The will of the indigenous people should be paramount and the Zionist leaders were perfectly aware that the ‘locals’ did not want Zionist immigration.

Having admitted that a state can refuse immigrants, how can you claim that Zionism was moral in forcing itself on the Middle-East just because the ‘locals’ had not had the opportunity to become a state?

that we should have treated the Palestinians as though they were a state, regardless of whether they were or not, because as indigenous people they should have the right to make their own decisions. Corr et?

Here are the problems with that POV. First, and very importantly, how do we know which indigenous people to listen to? The whole Middle East had no borders then, the French and British made arbitrary ones based on some national considerations but mostly just did what would benefit them in the future. You say "listen to the indigenous people" but does that mean the Palestinians, the Arabs as a whole, borders that "they" decide on their own, what?

Next, how would you talk to them? There were no elected officials, just ones appointed by the British and French. There were people like the Mufti who organized people to violence using propaganda and lies, to better cement his hold on power. But there were no elected officials. And there was certainly no one who represented all of the different factions existing in Palestine.

You are basically advocating a modern ideal that did not quite exist then. The idea was that eventually there would be self-sufficiency in government in the Mandate areas. But the whole idea of the Mandates was to help bring these areas into the 20th century and enable them to govern on national and international scales. This is something that King Hussein was capable of, but only because he was installed (in Iraq, eventually), by the British. And he was overthrown after a while because he really had no legitimacy to rule Iraq. But this was common then. The will of the general populace was not considered to be terribly important, aside from paying some lip service to it occasionally.

Consider some of the rights we take for granted as innate now. Population exchanges are illegal. You can't just trade populations of civilians because you think it will ultimately be for the better. But it certainly wasn't illegal back then, regardless of whether the population in question supported it.

You say that everyone should have treated the Palestinians (or the Arabs, or whatever, some ill defined group), as a nation. But the international community supported the Mandates instead. Whether this was better or worse is impossible to say. But the fact remains that the rest of the world did not consider some states ready for independence. In a world still dominated by colonialism the idea that these decisions should be left up to the local, uneducated majority was not widely supported.

Now as far as ethics goes, the Zionists appealed to the government in charge at the time, who was charged with building the state (and had already split the Mandate into two separate states), and received their blessing. They got the support of the international community via the only legal outlet available at the time. And they obtained an agreement with the only Arab leader available who had the authority to make such decisions. As far as building countries goes, this might be the most any nation has gone to in order to gain legitimate rights.

Is that a defense of Zionism?.....That it caused the deaths of ‘only’ 60,000 people?

Well, if you are going to criticize it for the amount of deaths then it is necessary to put those in context, isn't it? But I take issue with your use of the word "caused." Zionism did not cause those deaths. You may think that the Arabs were in their rights to "defend" their homeland from these peaceful immigrants who purchased land legally, but we should really consider this. Is it ever justifiable for a group to murder members of another group if there is no threat of violence whatsoever? We are talking about unarmed farmers, some indigenous Jews, some immigrants, who did nothing illegal and posed no threat to the Arabs. Even if the indigenous Arabs opposed the immigration of more Jews, and rightly feared for the preservation of their culture, how can it be ethically justifiable to massacre them?

Only the Arabs were forced to accept mass immigration from an alien culture.

That's ridiculous. During WWI and II there were massive shifts of populations all over the world. And we are talking about Palestine here, don't forget. Are you really arguing that Palestine never had large numbers of immigrants from other cultures before?

Besides, no one is arguing that this was FAIR for the Palestinians. It wasn't. But in ethics we are often asked to choose between several options, none of which are good or fair. Saying that it was ethical for the Jews to build a homeland in their historic homeland to provide a safe haven for victims of anti-semitism doesn't guarantee that every Arab would support it or be happy with the outcome. They needed to compromise from what their expectations were... clearly they chose not to.

Realistically, NO possible outcome for the Palestinians would have met either their expectations or your benchmark for morality. No society gets a guarantee that their culture will remain unchanged or free from outside influences. But Israel was needed for the Jews. There were no other alternatives that could have possibly ensured their survival. The Palestinians did not face death at the hands of Zionist immigrants. At the very worst they feared marginalization. But we must weigh the very real threat faced by the Jews and their right to self-determination in their own homeland versus the Palestinians' xenophobic reactions.

Historically, the Arabs dominated the Middle East by force, limiting the populations of the earlier inhabitants. No one is saying the current populations should be punished for this, but then neither should the minority ethnicities. Your argument basically says that domination and oppression in the past (which is why the Arabs were a majority), will justify ownership in the present. The Jews were expelled in the past with a small remainder allowed to stay in Palestine. The rest were spread out all over the MidEast and Europe. Obviously they don't have large numbers or a ton of property in Palestine. They are too spread out to do that anywhere. And since they were oppressed in mostly all of their adopted states they never built up density in any one area. Therefore they seem to forfeit their right to build their own state, right? (Which, according to you hinges on the density of a population alone.) And so the crimes of the past enable the crimes of the present and future.

It would be different if the Arabs did not control virtually the entire remainder of the MidEast. But since they DO, how is it ethical for them to deny the Jews a sliver of their homeland to defend against genocide? I realize that the Palestinians lose something in this scenario. (Although realistically they never really had to.) But why do the rights of the individual Arab trump those of the entire Jewish nation?

This is crucial. If you ignore the rest of my post please answer that final question.

The Anglo-French Declaration of November 1918 pledged that Great Britain and France would "assist in the establishment of indigenous governments and administrations in Syria and Mesopotamia by "setting up of national governments and administrations deriving their authority from the free exercise of the initiative and choice of the indigenous populations".

Balfour resigned as foreign secretary following the Versailles Conference in 1919, but continued in the Cabinet as lord president of the council. In a memorandum addressed to new Foreign Secretary Lord Curzon, he stated that the Balfour Declaration contradicted the letters of the covenant (referring to the League Covenant) the Anglo-French Declaration, and the instructions to the King-Crane Commission. All of the other engagements contained pledges that the Arab populations could establish national governments of their own choosing according to the principle of self-determination.

Balfour explained:

"The contradiction between the letters of the Covenant and the policy of the Allies is even more flagrant in the case of the ‘independent nation’ of Palestine than in that of the ‘independent nation‘ of Syria. For in Palestine we do not propose to even go through the form of consulting the wishes of the present inhabitants of the country though the American Commission is going through the form of asking what they are.

The Four Great Powers are committed to Zionism. And Zionism, be it right or wrong, good or bad, is rooted in age-long traditions, in present needs, and future hopes, of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land. In my opinion that is right.

What I have never been able to understand is how it can be harmonized with the declaration, the Covenant, or the instruction to the Commission of Enquiry.

I do not think that Zionism will hurt the Arabs, but they will never say they want it. Whatever be the future of Palestine it is not now an ‘independent nation’, nor is it yet on the way to become one. Whatever deference should be paid to the views of those living there, the Powers in their selection of a mandatory do not propose, as I understand the matter, to consult them. In short, so far as Palestine is concerned, the Powers have made no statement of fact which is not admittedly wrong, and no declaration of policy which, at least in the letter, they have not always intended to violate.

If Zionism is to influence the Jewish problem throughout the world Palestine must be made available for the largest number of Jewish immigrants. It is therefore eminently desirable that it should obtain the command of the water-power which naturally belongs to it whether by extending its borders to the north, or by treaty with the mandatory of Syria, to whom the southward flowing waters of Hamon could not in any event be of much value.

For the same reason Palestine should be extended into the lands lying east of the Jordan. It should not, however, be allowed to include the Hedjaz Railway, which is too distinctly bound up with exclusively Arab Interests..."

It is interesting that Balfour gave no explanation of why the Great Powers were committed to Zionism nor why it should be at the expense of the Palestinians rather than the USA/Canada/Argentina etc!


Let me now respond to your ‘final question’:

Isn’t the answer obvious?...The Arabs in general have no idea of western ethical values and certainly don’t apply them.....The same cannot be said for the Zionists...Most of them had European values and even pre-WW1 knew right from wrong......The fact that the Arabs had no ethical values is immaterial....They were not the ones deciding to invade Palestine!



I hoped you had realized by now that I try to answer all your comments....I have no axe to grind....If you or someone else can produce convincing evidence that the Zionists were right to do what they did then I will change my opinion of Zionism...Nothing I have heard or read to date has indicated that flooding Palestine with Zionists was right.


Let me move onto your other points:
1. I asked you why, ethically, should the indigenous Arabs not have been treated as if they were sovereign when it came to foreign immigration?...So far, you have said there were difficulties: “... because the Middle east was not homogeneous” (Answer: So were many other ex-colonial people) and “....how do we know which indigenous people to listen to?” (Answer: You don’t... All the Zionists had to do was to make sure the massive Zionist immigration was wanted by the locals......It was abundantly clear that it wasn’t wanted).....Have you other reasons?

You also said that the Great Powers decided to pursue the Mandate system and the Zionists merely conformed with the system, received the approval of the Mandate power and did nothing ‘illegal’......You seem to have forgotten that the Palestine Mandate was the only one that forced the indigenous people to accept massive immigration.....The unique Palestine Mandate was the result of Zionist influence...The Zionists knew exactly what they were doing but considered their political objectives more important than those of the poor uneducated Arabs...Is that what you call ethical?

2. You have said that what the Zionists did was accepted as OK at the time...I dispute that, but even if it was, do you accept that the Zionist decision to flood Palestine with immigrants in order to create a Jewish majority against the will of the indigenous folk was ‘wrong’ and unethical by modern ethical standards?

3. You asked several pointed questions about the Arabs: “...how was it ethical of the Arabs to massacre Jews?” (Answer: It wasn’t) and again “.... how is it ethical for them to deny the Jews a sliver of their homeland to defend against genocide? (Answer: It wasn’t ethical, but at least the Palestine Arabs had the excuse that they were a poor, backward people in a land that was already populated).

Why are you not asking such questions of the Great Powers?.....Why are you not asking, for instance: “.....why, since the USA/Canada/Russia/Argentina/Australia controlled virtually the entire non-populated world...How was it ethical for them to deny the Jews a sliver of it for a homeland to defend against genocide?”

Why do you criticize the ethics of the Arabs and not western states who were largely responsible for the Jewish predicament?

Oh that's right. They can't be bothered to explain or justify anything, especially why Palestinians should have been forced to accept Jewish immigrants when the rest of the world rejected such immigration.

not a difficult question....your right the whole world rejected the concept and had no problem with the jews being the forever victims of anti-semitism, be it in arab countries or europe or the new world, given that it was not going away the zionists decided to finally do something to stop being victims.

thats your answer, plain an simple... A few more relevant details...

The land of Palestine was chosen for a multitude of political/historical reasons. Those Palestinians living there either got screwed or are lucky to now be living in a democracy, depending upon which arabs you talk to.

On one hand creating countries is a messy business, so nothing new here, creating democracies is even tougher, though those that are lucky enough to live within one, are never willing to live elsewhere. Of course creating a democracy in an attempt to save people from a real attempt at genocide can in some circles be considered a good thing....

Life isn't fair is it? just ask the jews, the Palestinians, the iraqis, the germans, the greeks, the turks, the kurds, the taliban, the women in saudi arabian, the native americans, etc etc etc.
____

i guess the question you cant be bothered to explain or justify is why you believe its fair that the jews be the continual victims of anti semitism without having a place to live where it doesnt exist and there is no fear of it rearing its ugly head every so often

I don't disagree with you on the above, but Shira's post cried out for putting the reverse to show how silly she was.




The simple answer is that I don't think it "....fair that the jews be the continual victims of antisemitism without having a place to live etc etc" and therefore no explanations or justifications are necesary.....I'm surprised you made that assumption.

I will pursue this subject if you want, but I would much prefer you to continue out previous discussion.
.
.

Pelsar....my apologies....I have just realized that Shira's message was deleted!.......Perhaps the mods thought my facetious 'reversal' was more acceptable than Shira's rant!
.

i'd be happy to...after i was gone for a week or two (too much work) i then "lost" the post....and i still don't remember under which title it was...would you bring it up to the top and i would like to continue as well...

pelsar

Pelsar - See your post titled "Fatah official in Gaza holds Unity talks with independants".....I brought it up yesterday so it is now about 8 posts down from the top....My unaswered message was No.114.....(I see Shira has found it already!)

When the Mandatory expired in 1948 Jews owned 5.8% of the land in Palestine. Almost all of the rest was owned by Palestinians.

We could quibble about a percentage here and there (I recall reading that the Jews owned about 7% of the land), however the big problem with your post is that the Palestinians did not own much more than that. Most of the land of Palestine was owned by the government, and not private land owners. So whatever amount the Jews owned, the Palestinians did not own the rest. They actually owned about a similar percentage as the Jews; maybe a percent or two more. Ownership was never the issue. the right to sovereignty was what was and is at issue.

You are wrong, but it really doesn't matter.

The point is that Israelis cannot argue that they bought the land, which is exactly the argument being made.

And if the issue is sovereignty - and that is exactly right - then it is not much of an argument.

That would be very foolish to do since it is obvious that they didn't own all of the land that became Israel. They did, however, buy the land that they did own. They did not steal it. Nor did they steal the government land that became Israel. That became the Israeli government's land once the British abandoned it.

and elsewhere. Indeed, the argument is mentioned in this thread and elsewhere.

"They did not steal it. Nor did they steal the government land that became Israel. That became the Israeli government's land once the British abandoned it."

And how exactly did it "become" Israel's land. By what right? By what standard?

The answer is by no right, by no standard, but by a systematic and racist policy of ethnic cleansing, depriving well over a million Palestinians of their land and freedom.

The only mention I see of it is post six where it is posted that the Jews bought land. That is true. The post does not say that the Jews bought all the land of Israel. I don't see any evidence to support your claim.

A>"They did not steal it. Nor did they steal the government land that became Israel. That became the Israeli government's land once the British abandoned it."

Tom>And how exactly did it "become" Israel's land. By what right? By what standard?

Government land becomes the property of the succeeding government. The government of Israel took ownership by becoming the succeeding government to the Mandate. By what right do you claim that the land became owned by the Palestinians?

Tom>The answer is by no right, by no standard, but by a systematic and racist policy of ethnic cleansing, depriving well over a million Palestinians of their land and freedom.

In the world of Leftist anti-Israel slogans, I'm sure that's true. However, in the real world, it is simply false.

"Government land becomes the property of the succeeding government. The government of Israel took ownership by becoming the succeeding government to the Mandate. By what right do you claim that the land became owned by the Palestinians?"

Palestinians lived and worked most of it. At the time of the Bunch Plan in late 1947 there were almost 1.3 million Palestinian Arabs and about 500,000 Palestinian Jews. And just how did Israel become "the succeeding government to the Mandatory?" How did most of Palestine become "the Jewish State?"

"In the world of Leftist anti-Israel slogans, I'm sure that's true. However, in the real world, it is simply false."

Ben-Gurion's diary, the Hagana Archives, IDF Archives, the Central Zionist Archives and other similar "Leftist Anti-Israel" sources dispute your thinly veiled ad hominum attack.

By the same right that exists for every other state. Which is to say they made it for themselves.

They built the infrastructure of the state. They built its economic base, its government and the systems by which they operate. They defended said state against foreign and domestic attacks, ie: the civil war in 1947 which expressed itself as attacks on the Jews of Palestine, and the subsequent Israel-Arab war of 1948. Finally and most importantly, they were recognized as a state by the rest of the world who then began treating it as such.

There is no ultimate authority who decides these matters. You may as well ask who granted the Americans rights for their colony to become an independent state in 1776.

The answer is by no right, by no standard, but by a systematic and racist policy of ethnic cleansing, depriving well over a million Palestinians of their land and freedom.

Well over a million Palestinians lost their land and freedom, huh? That seems like kind of a lot. Certainly more than I've ever heard before... it's amazing how this number keeps getting bigger over the years, right? Seriously, I think you're off by a few hundred thousand or so. Which doesn't impact the principle of our debate, but I think it's important to keep our facts and figures as accurate as possible. On that note, most of the refugees were not landowners (some had just recently immigrated there themselves), so they did not lose much of their land. And Israel did nothing to deprive them of their freedoms. That burden fell to the Arab states they emigrated TO. A far greater crime that receives less than its fair share of attention, IMO.

Yes, there was ethnic cleansing. Which by its nature is racist. But let's not be coy here. The conflict itself is riven down ethnic lines. What is the purpose of partitioning two nationalities only to have only one of those states absorb all of the refugees? If Israel's policy were truly systermatic then they did an exceptionally poor job of it. Fully 20% of its remaining population was not Jewish. (And presumably not supportive of the new state they inhabited, yet they were welcomed regardless, to stay and prosper as invited to by Ben Gurion.) Whereas we saw almost no Jewish people remaining in the entire Arab world after a few years.

During this time period there were many millions of refugees around the world. Many new states were formed. Ethic cleansing inevitably followed. Israel's creation created a few hundred thousand Palestinian refugees and absorbed around a million Jewish ones shortly thereafter. This kind of population exchange was common, and in this case, relatively bloodless. Up to a million souls were massacred during India's partition and almost 15 million crossed borders as refugees. Yet now, decades later only the Palestinians find themselves still living as refugees without either an adopted state or one for themselves.

Why is this? It is clearly not something that Israel did, or even had the power to do. Those decades have seen Israel grow from a tiny, idealistic group of people who didn't even share a common tongue to a global economic powerhouse, more democratic and more free than any of the states surrounding it. This despite Arab boycotts, wars that saw fighing of every front, internal political strife and the constant threat of annihilation by its neighbors. I say this to point out that it is clearly possible to succeed despite wretched odds. Israel is clearly here to stay. Their legitimacy is buttressed by their continued existance, by their THRIVING state, despite all odds. Demanding justification now for their "right" to exist based on events 60 years past does nothing but reinforce the fears of Israel's worst right wing extremists.

Your energy would be far better served by arguing for Palestine's right to exist. Theirs is the existence that is less certain, after all. Israel exists. Their right to do so is inherent based on this fact alone. Palestine does not yet exist and so far no one seems intent on guaranteeing them any sort of right to. (BTW, they too committed ethnic cleansing 60 years ago. But it would be a poor argument to use against their acquiring a state now. Likewise in Israel's case.)

Israel - an explicitly Jewish State - was created on land that was predominantly home to non-jews. Then it tossed over 700,000 people from 1947-49 and another 350,000 after the '67 War. It's pretty hard to dispute that.

In large part, Palestinians have no state because Israel exists on part of its land. Look at the maps from Camp David and tell me how you accept that chicken pox structure and no right of return. Before its existence and continuing to this day, Israel has lusted for more land. That's a key reason the major Israeli parties have permitted settlements. They have always believed that the land is theirs - all of it. This is not the whole story - others also deserve blame - but it is a large part of it.

Who cares if Israel thrives? I understand you are proud of the Israeli State and I get why. But is not relevant to this discussion. The purpose of bringing up the historical origins of the conflict is to put the conflict in a legitimate context, rather than the cartoonish good guy-bad guy meme of the Crazy Palestinian Terrorists against the Just and Besieged Jewish State.

There was no "Palestinian ethnic cleansing" 60 years ago of which I am aware.

I know all too well where my energy should go. Yes, "theirs is the existence that is less certain." This is the position of all oppressed peoples; it is easy to cheer the powerful, especially when you feel a part of it But the Empire is on the verge of retiring and Big Daddy will not be around forever. The world is changing, as it did dramatically not so long ago. Some people would do well to remember that.

when the economy goes sour, guess who traditionally gets a good part of the blame?

thats right, the jews..... just wait for it, soon it will rear its ugly head once again.

btw, this is the simplistic argument meant for simplistic thinking and believing:
Then it tossed over 700,000 people from 1947-49 and another 350,000 after the '67 War. It's pretty hard to dispute that.

its as if there was no war, with an arab agenda to match that of germany, no politics involved, no Palestinians who didnt join the fighting and stayed put, to live in a democracy....


what i find most interesting/ironic is how your beliefs matches those on the far right:
you seem to clearly believe that nationalism and the genetic make up ("we were here first") of those on the land is more important than political freedom for all. That clearly is what your saying, though your using a different terminology.

You clearly reject that the jews brought in democracy (something the druze, arabs of israel clearly prefer), to what was the obvious other alternative...which is fine, a lot of people believe that political freedom is far less important than being ruled by the "right people" with the proper genetic makeup. (those "brown" people, i believe they are now called.) who have rights to the land because of their own history and genetic makeup. (the "we were here first, so we can do what we want mentality)

They differ according to where one stands, what group one identifies with and, most noticeably, as time passes. When we analyze these events from 60 years ago it is important that we refrain from judging either side's actions using standards that didn't exist until several decades later. Can we agree to try and maintain a sense of historical context?

That said there's something I'd like to get off my chest right away. I find these kinds of discussions inherently unfair on a certain level. The creation of most states are stained with a certain amount of blood and injustice, yet no matter what current policies of theirs that we may criticize it is only ever Israel whose legitimacy as a state is routinely challenged. It goes without saying that had Zionism never existed then the conflict would never have occurred. But I fully reject the idea that this somehow intimates that the bulk of responsibility for the conflict's never-ending continuation rests with Israel. Looking at Israel's creation in comparison to other states in the region (Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon) and other states born during the same time period and via similar means (India, Pakistan, East Pakistan ie: Bangladesh), I see only one obvious difference. In the case of Israel, most of the people responsible for building and founding the state were immigrants from an entirely different region of the world. But I wholly reject the argument that just because Palestine had a majority Arab population they somehow have the rights to xenophobically challenge the immigration of all non-Arabs everywhere. You are conferring upon a mob the rights usually reserved for the leaders of a state. All of Palestine did not belong exclusively to the Arabs. It is the historical and cultural home to many different nations and ethnicities. Do not mistake their rights to avoid oppression and exercise their right to self-determination with sovereignty over all of Palestine.

Then it tossed over 700,000 people from 1947-49 and another 350,000 after the '67 War. It's pretty hard to dispute that.

I can dispute that. Firstly, we are both aware of the events surrounding the first Nakba. Israel "tossed out" a very small percentage of the people who fled. What it did do was prevent their return. The difference is not merely semantics; its practical implication was that the 160–200,000 Arabs who did not flee, who remained in Israel, were allowed to become equal citizens of the new state.

At the time, population transfers of this sort to prevent civil war were not considered war crimes or even particularly unethical. It was not prohibited by international law, even without the consent of the population in question, until 1949. Don't forget that Israel also absorbed around 1 million Jewish refygees from Arab states.

After the '67 war, Israel didn't toss anyone. The few hundred thousand that fled the West Bank to avoid the fighting did so themselves. Since they were Jordanian citiznes who remained in Jordan they would not be considered refugees. Moreover, after the war was over Israel decided to allow anyone who fled from the west bank to the east the right to return to their homes. This was discouraged by Jordan, not Israel, thus only 60–80,000 people returned.

Now, the original point you were making concerned how Israel got its land in the first place. You said it did so by a systematic and racist policy of ethnic cleansing, depriving well over a million Palestinians of their land and freedom. So none of these people who fled from the OPT in '67-'68 apply. Israel never expelled them to begin with. They were all allowed to return and tens of thousands of them did just that. And none of this land is considered part of Israel anyway, even by Israelis. (Except for East Jerusalem perhaps).

Incidentally, following this war it was Israel that tried to alleviate the Palestinian's wretched living situation by building solid homes for them instead of the squalid tent camps. This move was opposed by the PLO and several people who relocated to the houses were subsequently murdered.

So it is far less than a million. Almost none were "tossed out." Nor was there a systematic policy of racist ethnic cleansing. So, I consider that point pretty well disputed.

Before its existence and continuing to this day, Israel has lusted for more land. That's a key reason the major Israeli parties have permitted settlements. They have always believed that the land is theirs - all of it.

I reject this argument as the facts don't support it. To begin with, the political situation behind the Knesset allowing settlements has never been a cut and dry issue. That both parties ended up backing the policy has far more to do with the mechanics of Isrel's parlimentary system that gives some small groups an enormous amount of power via the need to secure a certain number of seats to govern (and thus the need to placate the hard right religious Zionists.) Israel has always shown itself to be more than willing to trade land for peace. At this point Israel has returned around 94% of the Arab land occupied during the '67 war. This is hardly the actions of a state that will do anything for more land and believe that all of it is theirs by right of birth. Even the settlements only comprise a few percent of the West Bank... around 3 or 4%.

There was no "Palestinian ethnic cleansing" 60 years ago of which I am aware.

Hebron was a bit more than 60 years ago. Are you not counting it for this reason? Beyond that, have you never wondered why East Jerusalem was devoid of Jews until after 1967? I mean, the Jewish Quarter is there... wouldn't you expect to also find Jews?

In large part, Palestinians have no state because Israel exists on part of its land.

Well, that's a pretty severe extrapolation. The Palestinians don't have a state for a myriad of reasons to numerous to list. But I think this reason is minor to non-existent. To start with the obvious, Arabs controlled this land for 20 years and no one made any indication whatsoever that the Palestinians would be allowed to have their own state their. Quite the opposite in fact.

Secondly, and I'll be brutally honest here, while you accuse Israel of existing on part of Palestine's land, it is important to understand that Palestine does not (nor did it ever), have any land. What it means when people say that Palestine never existed is that all of this occupied land, the whole OPT and everything else not explicitly covered by treaties, (including both east AND west Jerusalem), is technically disputed territory. It arguably does not belong to any state from a legal standpoint. (Which is why no foreign nations will have their embassies in Jerusalem even though it is Israel's capital. It is not truly, officially Israel.)

Beyond this I think it is important to step back and consider what is really two competing demands for self-determination. The I/P conflict is a zero sum game. Land won by one of them is lost by the other. Neither side can have all their desires, demands or "rights" attended to without the other losing theirs. Now within this framework, their competing claims are considered equal in legitimacy. And while it is not a popular opinion, I disagree with this assumption. Were it to come down to accomodating either the Palestinian or the Jewish right to realize self-determination I believe the Jews have a stronger claim.

My reasons are as valid as they are obvious. And while I will no doubt be accused of harboring racist beliefs as my motive, I feel my POV is justifiable on a number of valid levels. Firstly we have to consider the current existence of 20+ Arab states. Now I am not suggesting that All Arabs are the same. Far from it. However different the various facets of Arab cultures and nationalities are, the exact same thing could be said of the Jewish people. Yet despite this scope of variation, the Jewish people all share a single country. As a nationality, Palestine's uniqueness surely qualifies it as deserving of their own country. But not at the expense of the ENTIRE spectrum of Jewish culture (were it necessary to choose between them.) Secondly is the issue of basic human rights. Only when Israel gained authority over East Jerusalem were the myriad of religious sites there accessible to all three religions. Under Arab rule synagogues were destroyed, cemetary headstones used as building material, etc. Only Israel has ensured the rights of all three religions and acknowledged their historical ties to their respective sites. Third is the issue of anti-semitism, the reason for Israel's creation in the first places. Put simply, Jews face a level of persecution that makes their self-determination and ability to defend themselves a necessity that is virtually unmatched. Dismantling the state would undoubtedly result in the oppression, victimization and death of many Jews the world over.

People often approach the discussion about this conflict with the assumption that both Jews and Palestinians have equally legitimate claims to the land needed to self-govern. Many assume that the Palestinians have a greater immediate claim, as they are for the most part, actually from Palestine. But this accident of birth did not entitle them to the rights of denying others the ability to move there. Particularly if the alternative facing them was death or a gulag.

it is easy to cheer the powerful

Is it? My inclination has always been to identify wih the underdog, the oppressed. (Please spare me the dime store psychology insinuating that this is why people feel the need to falsely portray the Israelis as being victimized by the Palestinians. My motivations are somewhat more self-aware than that. Not much,,, but somewhat.)

First make it illegal for Jews to purchase land. Then argue that they don't deserve their own state because they don't own enough of the land in question.

CLASSIC!

BTW, your assertiopn that Palestinians owned "almost all the rest" has no basis in fact. I've never read any book about this time period that put that number above the single digits. If you have some new, groundbreaking data, then I'd love to see it. Most of that land was owned by the government or absentee landowners.

Not that I don't appreciate your crystal-clear example of how discriminatory beliefs, (the Jews are taking over!) grow into discriminatory policies, (To calm down the Arabs we'll just outlaw land sales to Jewish people!) and comes full circle to re-appear as discriminatory justifications. (Those Jews never deserved a state. Heck, they barely even bothered to buy any of that land they "say" they wanted so bad in the first place.)

Sunrise... sunset...

That land exists. It's called Israel. Most of the Zionists are not anti-arab though. And by most measures it has been wildly successful. The citizens are relatively peaceful with one another. Democratic. Good economy.

What's yr point?

I do fear that attitudes are hardening on both sides; but this poll is at variance with others that I've seen. A lot can depend on the way participants are sampled, and on the exact wording of the questions.

The Israeli government is making the arrogant demands that the Palestinian state MUST be as small as possible, MUST have no right to act militarily in self-defense(something that is demanded of NO other country anywhere on the Earth), MUST accept the major settler blocs as permanent, and must permanently accept IDF troops in the Jordan Valley, at the heart of Palestinian territory(a demand that would, if accepted, make Palestinian independence conditional and not permanent, since the IDF could revoke it by force at any time).

This is the Israeli regime's fault for insisting that a two-state solution be as demeaning and humiliating as possible for the Palestinian people.

Can't you see the problem here?

If you want people to accept a compromise, you don't insist on making it a compromise that will feel to them like a defeat. A compromise means parity and both sides ending up with something like parity of esteem and parity of stature.

one of the basic tenants is the separation of govt policy and actions vs the people and religion.

that is why we cant get mad at all muslims for the actions of hamas, al quida, etc who all claim they are/were killing people for the glory of allah.

now since no doubt you want to be consistent, you not supposed to excuse those people who dislike jews because of the actions of the israeli govt....remember? the israeli govt is not the same as the jews.

do you get it?
_________________________________

your supposed to apply the same rule to both jews and muslims....or do you have a special rule for the jews er israel?

And the hardline is not caused by Palestinian antisemitism...at least not predominately.

You make it sound like Palestinians never had any other motivations other than hatred of Jews. Ok, some of them did and do harbor such feelings(something the Israeli government, not the people of Israel, bear a lot of responsibility for by its insistence on equating itself with "the Jews", something that government isn't actually entitled to do, given that they don't have the unquestioning support of every Jewish person on the planet)but a larger number have been driven by the fact that they've been left powerless in the land they've always lived in, and that many of their countrymen and women have been driven from those homes. They'd be fighting anybody who did that to them. You think they wouldn't be fighting Jordan or the Ottomans if those power structures hadn't done the expulsions? You think they'd be fine with anybody else imposing collective punishment on them on a daily basis, carried out even to the point where there weren't humanitarian exceptions for letting people through checkpoints who really obviously were in need of immediate medical attention(like old women dying of heart attacks)?

Why would you assume that they'd only object to this because the state that does this to them self-identifies as Jewish? Why would you think anyone would subject themselves this and to use these tactics to change the power structure simply out of bigotry? Why is it impossible for you to accept that Palestinians are simply resisting(whatever you can say about the tactics)because anyone would resist anyone else that did this to them? Do you really believe Palestinians and Arabs are pathologically incapable of struggling for freedom or wanting a better life for themselves? Do you really believe that Arabs are sub-human? It really sounds like you do, my friend, and that's an unjustiable attitude to have against anybody.

The hardline is not caused by, or justified by, Palestinians having a higher level of antisemitism or a lower level of common humanity than any other people, and it's not true that different tactics would have won them a state. The hardline is caused as much as anything else by the Israeli governing coalition's continued determination to prevent a Palestinian state from coming into being. That's the only reason that Bibi could be insisting on keeping IDF troops in the Jordan Valley while Palestine itself is expected to be demilitarized...something you know perfectly is an impossible condition for any possible Palestinian leader to accept. A Palestinian state, like any other, must have the right to self-defense. Clearly you'd have to agree with that. What sort of state would they be if they, alone among nations was denied that(and no, contrary to Israeli government propaganda, nobody denies Israel the right to self-defense...the only bone of contention is that some reject the right of that government to silence any criticism or discussions of its actions by saying "it was self-defense", as both Netanyahu and Livni insist on-and that's a prerogative that none of us believes any other nation on the earth is entitled to either, for the record.)


It isn't unique to Israel to be a state that wishes not to return conquered territory, and I certainly don't single it out for that-my own country is guilty of the same and I denounce it for that-I personally believe that if it isn't possible for the U.S. to actually return the area of Mexico we stole and the massive amount of land we took by force from Native Americans/First Nations, then we have to make some kind of major financial and emotional amends to those victimized by the theft, because "Manifest Destiny" was never a legitimate national doctrine for this country). But it is an insistence that all countries need to give up on, because sometimes territorial concessions are, in fact, the only way to resolve a dispute. It was the only way, for example, in Sudan, as we all just observed.


And I do apply the same rules to Israelis(this isn't about applying rules to "Jews" and its demagogic to use "Israeli" as a synonym for "Jew", especially since most of the global Jewish population doesn't live in Israel and doesn't seem to be in any hurry to move there) as I do to Muslims and Arabs, so please don't assume that I don't. It was possible to criticize the Soviet Union for, among other things, its human rights abuses(including its mistreatment of Soviet Jews) without being a partisan of the American position in the Cold War...especially since that American actually didn't do Soviet Jews a hell of a lot of good. The nuclear buildup of the Eighties didn't help any of them, for example. Neither did JFK's insistence on threatening to vaporize the planet during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

And I've never said we can't get mad at the actions of Hamas...just that those actions don't justify the Occupation. There's a big difference between those things. Doing things that perpetuate Palestinian anger and Palestinian support for groups like Hamas is not the way to stop Hamas...only negotiations can do that...and those negotiations are going to have to include an abandonment of the intolerable Israeli demands that the major settlements stay in place and the IDF stays in the Jordan Valley for all eternity while the Palestinian state itself has no right to even HAVE an army(a condition that not only forces Palestinians to live at the mercy of the goodwill of any future Israeli government, but also of any future Jordanian monarch who might harbor revanchist designs on the West Bank).

Why is it so hard to understand that a Palestinian state should not have to be weaker and more vulnerable to outside attack than Israel in exchange for being allowed to come into existence?

90+% of arabs in major arab countries have unfavorable opinions of Jews.
this includes the Palestinians.....

i believe you blame israel for their anti semitism.....

as i wrote, according to progressive "rules" as i understand them, thats not supposed to be acceptable with no excuses given...one is not allowed to confuse a govts policies with its citizens or members of a religion.

I'm not suggesting anything about my opinion of Palestinian/arab motivations, i 'm just making a note of a poll and noting how you seem to blame israel as their motivation...
(and I'm hinting that we can then dislike all muslims for hamas actions....)

on any one source.

Some existed from the start(although, I suspect, no more, and perhaps less in the pre-1948 period than there was among people in other places, such as Christian Europe and North America).

What I'm saying is that Palestinian skepticism about a two-state solution(which is actually a significantly different question than Palestinian or other Arab feelings about "Jews" as a group, assuming that Jewish people can actually be considered a single group, which is problematic)is not predominately caused by pre-existing antisemitism. It's convenient for the supporters of the Israeli right and the apologists for the Occupation, the Siege of Gaza and the West Bank settlers to dismiss Palestinian feelings on any issue related to the Israeli/Palestinian issue as being grounded solely on an obsession with hating Jews that outweighs anything else Palestinians might be feeling. It isn't fair to Palestinians to reduce it to that, and I'm not sure it does rank-and-file Israeli civilians for their political leadership and its apologists in the States to insist on the whole thing being that simple.

I've never said that Palestinians were saints. I just reject the notion that they're the successors to the Nazis. Is that a totally unreasonable position for me to take, in your view?

I also don't collectively demonize ordinary Israelis. The distinction I make between government, military and civilians is drawn out of my determination to avoid doing something as foolish as that.

well?...over 90% is one helluva a number and it includes Palestinians as well as arabs that have probably never even see a jew... (maybe its them who see the jews as less than human?)


btw, how can you make a distinction between ordinary israelis and the IDF when the IDF is made up of those "ordinary israelis"....

for one thing.

For another, not every Israel is in the IDF at the same time.

For a third, there's a growing military refuser movement both within and without the IDF that refuses to serve in the Territories.

Those are some ways.

Just accept that criticism of Israeli security policy is not a personal attack on you, already. It never was.

and as was shown in the past, no soldier is immune being guilty of war crimes. We are well versed in the rights and wrongs and have received many lectures on the subject, hence the responsibility lies with us as well.

true no every israeli is in the IDF at the sametime, most dont even serve in the territories or in combat and even less serve in the reserves....but that doesn't mean the people dont support the IDF as per the public pressure on the govt to get gilad back home indicates as well as the general respect that military gets here.

3) again?...oy ken, when will you learn?....how many times do i have to mention that you have to learn to separate your wishful thinking from reality?......all i ask is that you do a bit of research before writing nonsense. Think of it this way, when your research comes up blank, you' ll be faced with a tough decision: base your opinion on the reality of your research or stay with your beliefs regardless of what you discover. At least that way you'll be more honest with your self.

the refuse to serve in the Territories movement is dead (its not growing-it died after gaza)..there is a general "dont want to serve" movement, but thats quite limited and is more based around selfish materialistic motives than political.

i accept criticism of israeli security policies without a problem....just be aware that we're carrying out those policies, the people, not mercenaries
______

but you skipped the question or at least you didnt answer clearly:
why are 90%o of the arabs anti semites (according to the poll)?...because of what i do?

It's my belief that what the poll registers as antisemitism is simply the resentment of one side in a war for those on the other side. You can't equate Palestinian feelings towards Israelis to German feelings toward Jews.

(Again, I also think that we need to have a neutral person who is fluent in Arabic read the poll as it was written in that language and give us a literal translation of the poll questions.)

And I don't say that the negative feelings Palestinians have about Israelis are about what you, as an individual, do. No one person is the cause of anything like that(and again, I don't speak personally about you because I don't know you as a person). It's truly unhealthy that you take any comment about any aspect of your country as a personal attack on you. No one is their country personified. No country is that simple. A comment about a country is a comment about the country, or its army, or its government, as a whole.

If the present situation in the West Bank was being perpetrated by victorious medieval Crusaders, 90% of Palestinians would say they were "anti-Catholic". If it was being administered by American evangelical nutjobs, that same 90% would say they were "anti-evangelical". It's a response to oppression. It's not bigotry. And ending the oppression wouldn't make it all go away, but it would make a lot of it go away.

By contrast, it's totally impossible to use the Occupation to make Palestinians give up antisemitism.

It always was.

It always will be.

And deep down inside, I don't think even YOU think it could(although I accept that you never will admit that to me in this thread)

Why would anyone think that such an approach ever could work?

Or that the Palestinian people would ever accept a narrative to the conflict that requires them to accept that the whole thing is their fault and would never have happened if only they had behaved better or something?

Nobody becomes better people because a foreign army forces them to be.

To use an extreme example:

Germany didn't re-embrace democracy because of the post-war Allied occupation(an occupation, for whatever it's worth, that was always far less draconian than the one imposed by the IDF in the West Bank).

They did that because the anti-Nazi voices had the chance to come home and make their case for doing things differently.

Support for Naziism ended in Germany after 1945 because the German people themselves, once the war was over, saw for themselves that it was the wrong choice and voluntarily re-established a democratic political culture. They would never have done that if they'd been treated for sixty years like the IDF has treated Palestinians in the West Bank. If THAT treatment had been inflicted, Germans would probably STILL be Nazi.

(note: I'm talking about the postwar occupation...not the Nuremburg trials and de-Nazification...those, obviously, WERE necessary).

And Palestinians were never guilty of supporting anything remotely as evil as the Holocaust(the Mufti got no recruits among actual Arabs for his "Arab Legion" meant to fight in World War II, and had to fill it almost entirely with Bosnians and Albanians), so there is even less reason to treat them worse than post-war Germans were treated.

The only reason to insist on doing to is to make a case for not ever changing anything...for not ever ending the Occupation...for not ever stopping the settlements...for not ever trying to actually address the real grievances Palestinians have about how they've been treated since 1967(and for not addressing how to compensate and emotionally make whole those driven out in 1948 as well).

It's about making a case for denying that the Israeli government is responsible for anything-and that everyone should just feel obligated to defend whatever that government says it has to do.

It's about, in short, silencing dissent and preventing the end of the dispute. If you work from the assumption that Palestinian feelings are just old-time European-style antisemitism, you are arguing for not even trying to make peace. You are arguing for giving up on Israelis really ever having a secure, safe life. Why would you WANT to make such a case?

It's much more constructive to try to work on resolving the dispute, which is something that dwelling endlessly on antisemitism cannot achieve.

Finally, of course the orders of the IDF are carried out by ordinary soldiers. But what does that mean? Does that mean those orders cannot be criticized? Does that mean that the fact that ordinary soldiers carry them out automatically priveleges the orders in question? Why should I accept that of Israeli military actions when I would not accept that, for example, of the orders carried out by American forces in Vietnam(and those forces were also, for the record, a conscript army)?

What is the point of your effort to try to make it as difficult as possible to speak out against an injustice(in this case, the Occupation)just because of who happens to carry it out? What good does it ever do to give any government, or any army, special protection against critical voices or special dispensations to act without anyone having the right to question? Does the fact that the IDF has ordinary people in its ranks mean that nothing it says can be criticized? Does it mean we can assume its inherently incapable of ever committing war crimes? If so, why? Ordinary people there are just as capable of losing a moral compass as ordinary people anywhere else. That's why you'd call them, well, ordinary.

It sounds like you're still insisting that the IDF has to be given special dispensations from criticism. I'm sorry, but I don't do that for anyone in the human race. All of us are capable, given the circumstances, are capable of the best or the worst things any other person can do. There's nothing derogatory to anyone, anywhere, in saying that.

when i mention that the IDF is made up of a volunteer force of israelis that make up most of the population, i am declaring that those very israelis and their supporters take full responsibility for what the IDF does. You prefer to "blame the generals" and not the population...i'm explaining to you that israel is not like the US, israel is much smaller with a far more active population.

i realize the problem..in the US its traditional to "blame" someone else, here i am explaining to you that the space between the govt/IDF and the citizens is much much less.

if the IDF is carpet bombing, massacring then its the people of israel that is actually doing that carpet bombing or massacring. If the IDF is starving the gazans, that its us, not some vague robot. Its called taking responsibility, that is one of the aspects that came out of WWII for israel, the population doesn't get to cover their eyes and ears and pretend they dont know whats going on.

now do you get it?..i shall repeat the key word: responsibility.


________________________________________

i have no problem when some one want to criticize israel, the occupation etc.
are you going to actually tell me that what you write is factual? that you dont exaggerate, dont leave out relevant information?, use defining words that infact dont fit (are wrong.)

just tell me the truth...yes or no

I'm fallible, like anyone else, but I don't knowingly write falsehoods or write with the intention to wound or slander.

If you guys take responsibility, fine. But that doesn't mean that nobody else has the right to call on you to take responsibility or to express outrage when the choice of whoever made the choice to engage in clearly irresponsible actions(like, for example, making elderly Palestinians who are obviously having real chest pains wait at the checkpoints until they when it was obvious that they deserved a humane exemption from the screening policies, as happened on more than one occasion). To post what I've post is not to demonize...I don't want Israel to go out of existence...I just want it to stop oppressing the Palestinians and to stop denying them their natural right to self-determination...Israel has nothing to lose by doing that...and gains little by maintaining the status quo.

how about i give you some examples of your writings and you explain to me either why you "left out" relevent information of just didn't know (i.e. no research and you can explain why you dont even both doing basic research....)

you game?

They'd be fighting anybody who did that to them. You think they wouldn't be fighting Jordan or the Ottomans if those power structures hadn't done the expulsions? You think they'd be fine with anybody else imposing collective punishment on them on a daily basis, carried out even to the point where there weren't humanitarian exceptions for letting people through checkpoints who really obviously were in need of immediate medical attention(like old women dying of heart attacks)?

Of course not. They wouldn't be fighting any of those people. Get real, how can you think this?
First of all, they did NOTHING for decades when the Jordanians actually TOOK their land and said it belonged to Jordan! When the PLO came into being they signed a document saying that they would never try and take that land away from Jordan, because they were freakin' scared of them.

And look at what happened in places where they then tried, a LITTLE bit to fight like you're suggesting. Remember Black September? Jordan did not hesitate to SLAUGHTER them by the thousands. And toss out their leadership. So then what Ken? They keep fighting like you say they would? Ummmm... nope.

Your thing about "humanitarian exceptions" is hysterical. You think that's an example of Israeli heartlessness, do you? The fact that you even think that shows you that Israel is playing on a whole different level than the Arab states. A normal, nice, easygoing level. Look up Hama, Syria one day. Humanitarian exceptions... dude, they PAVED that place over. They killed EVERYONE for organizing against Assad. Do you think anyone kept fighting afterwards?

For 20 years before '67 the Palestinians living in the OPT were forced to live in tents, not allowed to leave, etc. Did they rise up? Jordan took their land, forced them to accept citizenship but still made them live in refugee camps. Did they revolt? No?

Don't get me wrong. It's not that they're anti-semitic that they're fighting like this. That's not what I think at all. It is because the Israelis never put the hammer down on them. They can fight forever and take very moderate casualties. While the Arab states will actually wipe them out or expel them without a moments hesitation. They can defend against Israeli fighter planes who plan to bomb a house by getting villagers and children to stand on the roof waving flags. This will keep the pilot from firing! If it was Hamas flying the plane and the building was Israeli do you think that would make him abort the mission? Of course not!

Think about that. They actually have a military defense tactic that involves exploiting the Israeli pilots' reluctance to kill kids. Think they'd do this if they weren't 100% sure that the pilot would abort? Of course not. Now, do you think anyone would try this tactic against the Syrians? Probably not.

Why not Ken?

Therefore it's only reasonable that people hate all Muslims for Hamas or al-Qaeda policy, right?

That's quite a progressive viewpoint you have there, Ken!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

AND work for an end to Bibi's insistence on keeping IDF troops in the Jordan Valley forever while simultaneously denying a Palestinian state any right to self-defense. A demilitarized Palestinian state has no sovereignty, because such a state would live forever at the mercy of two threats

1)A particulary aggressive Israeli government elected on a revanchist program deciding to re-take the West Bank.

2)A future Hashemite monarch in Jordan deciding to try the same thing.

Thus a demilitarized Palestinian state is no state at all and has little chance to survive.

...when the majority Arab population massacred the Jewish minority there.

Are you also forgetting Hitler's favorite Mufti, al-Husayni? The Palestinians' first leader and Arafat's uncle and hero?

And what led to almost all Jews being ethnically cleansed from all Arab lands surrounding Israel WAY before the 1967 occupation began, if not antisemitism?

You're pretending 1967 is the root of all this evil.

Why?

Nobody alive in Palestine today is responsible for the Mufti(and few of them were back in the day, because Al-Husayni was imposed in that job by Lord Samuel against the will of the Palestinian people). And it still goes without saying that Palestinians themselves had nothing to do with the Holocaust. Or other Arab countries for that matter. Remember, other than the 1,000 victims of the 1945 riots, the Jewish population of North Africa survived World War II unscathed.

As to the descendants of the actual indigenous Jewish population of the West Bank, their parents shouldn't ever have been forced out and they themselves should be allowed to return now-and to live as Palestinian citizens.

There needs to be an independent international commission to determine all the causes of the Mizrahi population transfers of 1948-1958(I believe that there were a combination of causes involving both Arab political opportunism and some early Mossad infiltration of North African countries designed to provoke the Mizrahi from leaving).

I've never said there was no historic antisemitism in the pre-1948 Arab world. It existed. And needs to be addressed. But you can't realistically expect that to change as long as Palestinians are denied a state. That's the flaw in all your arguments. You see it as all the Palestinians' and other Arabs fault and act as if the responsibility for ending this is all on THEIR shoulders. No dispute is solely one country's or one side's fault, there are always complicating factors(such as, for one thing, Arab suspicions that Israel would act as a tool of Western interference in their region and a continuation in some ways of the Western colonialist notion of controlling the region, something "the West" has no right to do)and all of them have to be taken into account.

And as to the Palestinians themselves, had the Israeli government taken the prescient suggestion of the younger Yitzak Rabin, following the Six-Day War, to give the West Bank to the Palestinian people as a state of their own(I got this from a footnote in "1949-THE FIRST ISRAELIS" by Tom Segev), even you would have to acknowledge that the present conflict would almost certainly not exist, since the Palestinians would have had their state and the Arab leaders of the day would have been able to recognize and make peace with Israel without the risk of being overthrown by extremists. Any remaining issues would have been easily resolvable through negotiations.

You see, in 2005 Israel abandoned Gaza and parts of the W.Bank and instead of attitudes getting better they got worse, proving your rationale is wrong as you believe attitudes would get better if only Israel ended the occupation. Attitudes got worse in Lebanon too after Israel withdrew troops from there in 2000 and you see what the situation is like now.

You're wrong and don't know what you're talking about.

I place a lot of the blame on the governments of Gaza and Lebanon b/c all they do 24/7/365 is saturate the media, schools, mosques with non-stop hatred to deflect attention from themselves. If you remember, within Israel the level of antisemitism among Arabs is significantly lower (like 35% rather than 95%).

The way that the Sharon government handled that was meant to be an expression of contempt to the Palestinians. He didn't say or even try to send the message "if this plays out well, we'll do the same with the West Bank". He basically made it sound like Gaza was to be the Palestinian crumb and they better shut up and like it.

I wish the Palestinian side hadn't taken the bait, but the way it was done WAS bait, and Sharon knew(as he knew when he strolled through the Temple Mount when he wasn't supposed to)that it would be a provocation.

If Sharon had actually wanted the Gaza withdrawal to be a positive step, he would have negotiated the terms of it with the PA, treating them as equal partners in the process. He didn't do that, but instead took a "screw you, buddy" tone towards the PA and rank-and-file Palestinians throughout. It was exactly what the British did in Ireland in the 1920's-a withdrawal with poison pills, designed to keep tensions going(and to inflame the Fatah/Hamas rivalry)and to prevent the Palestinians from doing anything positive with the situation.

And the other thing remains...how could you possibly expect that maintaining the Occupation could make Palestinians LESS antisemitic? It's the natural thing for an occupied people to resent their occupiers. How can continuing that Occupation have any other effect than to perpetuate and deepen that resentment? Especially since the Israeli government always has the demagogic habit of saying that any Palestinian resentment of Israeli security policy equates to hatred of "The Jews"?

If Palestinians are now skeptical about the 2-state solution, or if they even sound antisemitic, it's because guys like Bibi wanted them too. The whole purpose of Israeli security policy since 2000 or so has been to prevent the creation of a Palestinian state and to prevent the conflict from ending. That's the only reasonable conclusion you can draw from Bibi's position on those issues(a position, from what I can see, Tzipi Livni pretty much shares). The Israeli people deserve better than this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel's_unilateral_disengagement_plan

The situation with Lebanon after withdrawal there was no better.

Any excuse for that one?

to provide whatever information that link was meant to provide.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel's_unilateral_disengagement_plan#Plan_description

All 21 settlements in Gaza along with 4 in the W.Bank.

4 settlements in the West Bank is fairly trivial, actually, given that none of those settlements have any legitimate right to be there.

The total disengagement from Gaza as well as the start of disengagement from the W.Bank shows good will.

You're incapable of admitting anything positive WRT Israel's actions in this conflict.

100% Israel's fault.

0% Palestinians.

--------------

Tell me, what did Israel do wrong WRT the Lebanon 2000 withdrawal? Whose ass did they fail to kiss? The situation only got worse from there afterwards, not better. And please don't ignore this...

because you'd simply reject any response I made and keep hectoring me about it endlessly.

Your refusal to see this through their eyes, as legitimate concern and not racism, is a form of dehumanization.

But those can only be dealt with through treating the Palestinian side as equals, not as moral inferiors for whom independence is a privilege to be earned.

You act as if Israelis have had it worse than Palestinians. They haven't. And they aren't the greater victims in the I/P dispute. Yes, they have suffered. But Palestinians have suffered far more deeply. Nothing that Israelis go through can possibly be worse than the Occupation or the Siege. And it's not reasonable to expect Palestinians, as a group, to accept that they collectively deserved to suffer because of what the militants and some of their leaders did.

n/t.

Anyone that disagrees with that stance probably approves of the U.S. violating Pakistani, and Yemenese airspace with drones. As a U.S. citizen I can't condone it because it carries significant ramifications for the nations of the world.

...would make up this state and they'd have everything needed for a sovereign nation.

Questions?

You truly believe that Arab anti-semitism has some kind of relationship to the Palestinians' lack of a state, and the way Israel treats them, the nakba, etc. Correct?

But a huge flaw exists in this reasoning. Which is that the Arab states, by any metric you care to use, have always treated the Palestinians far worse than Israel ever has.

The Arab League forbade any Arab state from giving the refugees citizenship or even improving their squalid tent camps. The Refugee Conference at Homs, Syria in '57 stated Any discussion aimed at a solution of the Palestine problem which will not be based on ensuring the refugees' right to annihilate Israel will be regarded as a desecration of the Arab people and an act of treason.

Palestinians in Lebanon are oppressed to a degree not seen in Europe since the Nazis. They can't own property, can't go to university, can't live most places, can't work in most professions, don't have citizenship, don't have access to the government healthcare system, etc. (Even the Soviets allowed you to study and work.)

In Kuwait after the First Gulf War 300,000 Palestinians were expelled (bc they supported Saddam's invasion.)

After 2003 in Iraq, most Palestinians living there were either murdered or fled, leaving thousands in a makeshift camp between the borders of Syria and Jordan, who refuse to let them in. (America is taking more than 1000.)

Between 4000 and 20,000 Palestinians were killed during Black September in 1970 in Jordan. (Only the Hama massacre in Syria was considered larger.)

And of course, between 1948 and 1967 both Egypt and Jordan refused to grant the Palestinians their own state in the land that's now the OPT. Jordan actually annexed it, gave the inhabitants citizenship only to strip them of it when it decided to release it's claim over the West Bank. (Can you imagine if Israel gave away some pre-67 land as part of a swap with Palestine and ALSO gave them the Arab Israelis who were living there, stripping their citizenship? They'd be crucified, and rightly so. But no one cares when Jordan does it.)

Not to mention that Arab states never contribute to the UNRWA. That's all the US and some EU. I think even Israel's given more than Saudi Arabia. Crazy, right?

No one cares about the Palestinians. What they are is an EXCUSE for Arab states to rally their constituents with xenophobic rants.

And as to the Palestinians themselves, had the Israeli government taken the prescient suggestion of the younger Yitzak Rabin, following the Six-Day War, to give the West Bank to the Palestinian people as a state of their own(I got this from a footnote in "1949-THE FIRST ISRAELIS" by Tom Segev), even you would have to acknowledge that the present conflict would almost certainly not exist, since the Palestinians would have had their state and the Arab leaders of the day would have been able to recognize and make peace with Israel without the risk of being overthrown by extremists. Any remaining issues would have been easily resolvable through negotiations.

I call shenanigans on this!

Seriously, it is EXACTLY what I heard regarding leaving Lebanon AND Gaza. Like, to a T. Everyone thought, (me included), "Oh, it'll cut off support for Hezbollah if we just leave. Hamas will certainly lose support in Gaza if we pull out entirely and let them govern themselves! Terrorism is fueled by the occupation... show them we're willing to compromise and they'll do the same!"

And what happened? Everything the hard right haters predicted. It galls me to no end. It sucks. But they've been proven to be better predictors of foreign policy than the leftist peace camp. Reality sucks, I know. But you can't just abandon it in favor of whatever alternate universe you're currently inhabiting. (And you wonder why Bibi is PM?. Voila!)

9/11. Just like it.

What I'm saying is that you can't expect the Palestinians to be enthusiastic about a two-state solution if the Israeli side insists that that solution be created solely on Bibi's terms. Bibi is insisting on the IDF in the Jordan Valley and a complete denial of a Palestinian right to self-defense because he wants a Palestinian state to exist in a status of subordination and humiliation, living perpetually on sufferance with the IDF retaining the right to revoke Palestinian sovereignty by force anytime it sees fit.

All I'm saying is that there's no reason a Palestinian state should be denied any right to enforce its own sovereignty. Given that the settlements still exist(and settlement expansion still gets approved on a regular basis) and that the Occupation was re-established after the collapse of Oslo(when it was never supposed to be re-established again because the PA was supposed to be in charge at that point)Palestinians have their own reasons for distrust. A peace settlement needs to acknowledge this and not act as if the Israelis can be trusted but the Palestinians can't.

Does that clarify my position?

A Palestinian state that spent the time and resources to try and build up a military that's big enough to serve as a deterrent to either Jordan or Israel would put itself in far more danger than a state with just a police force. First the threat you mentioned is ridiculous. Gaza has been ATTACKING Israel for years now and Israel has yet to respond by re-occupying it. The most it did was invade for a few days. And isn't Jordan like 60% Palestinian or something?

Of the three states, the one with the most unstable government by FAR is Palestine. If they had a coup and Hamas (or whoever), took over and decided to, say, retake a settlement on the right side of the green line, (which, let's say, became part of Israel in the negotiations and land swap), they would have the means to do so. Thus, creating the REAL problem...

Up until now Palestine has not had enough of a defense system to pose any real threat to Israeli soldiers when they executed missions there. Jenin is a great example. They were able to go in from the ground, and even in a messy situation like that, take the town with a minimum of collateral damage. They fought them like they were a militia, not a "real" army. But let's say the Palestinians were well equipped and trained. You're talking about fighting a militia that has NEVER fought according to the Geneva Conventions or any applicable rules of war. Do you think increasing their firepower will change this?

Israel would face a choice of going in slow and low, minimizing the odds of collateral damage but increasing the odds of taking casualties themselves. Or they can actually take them seriously. Like a real army. One that doesn't abide by any of the rules of war.

Why exactly is it impossible for Palestine to forgo having an army again? Japan cartainly did it without any issues.

Rather, it's the result of that intransigence. Bibi and Tzipi have no right to say they favor a two-state solution if that solution has to include permanent IDF troops in the Jordan Valley and the Palestinian state having no right to self-defense.

They have a right to self-defense, allowing Iran to import anything they want just a few miles away from major Israeli population centers, to defend against.........whom exactly?

Ken, that's the Hamas line.

Why should they have to just take the word of those countries that they'd never, ever attack?

Why should they have to be helpless in a way that you'd never tolerate Israel having to be?

You can't seriously expect an actual Palestinian state, once in place, to accept the idea that it has no right to have a defensive military. This is asked of no other nation in the world.

It isn't even asked of Germany.

A nation has to have some sort of military to actually be sovereign. Without that, it can't protect itself from anything. The demand that a Palestinian state be demilitarized is a demand that that state live forever at the mercy of both Israel and Jordan. That's the same thing as saying that Palestine is never to be allowed to be a real country at all. Can you not see the problem there?

I want Hamas to give up a lot of its weapons. In fact, I want it to become irrelevant. But maintaining the Siege of Gaza can never accomplish that goal. Nor can maintaining the Occupation ever get any other Palestinian forces accept Bibi's arrogant insistence on keeping IDF troops in the Jordan Valley, in the heart of a Palestinian nation, forever. NO other nation would accept that. Why should a Palestinian state have to accept terms of independence that are based on having to say "we accept that we can't be trusted with ACTUAL sovereignty"?

You're still holding out for peace through victory, even though you know that's impossible. In fact, at heart you still haven't given up on holding on to the West Bank. That's why you posted that article from that wackjob MK calling on all Palestinians to move to Jordan.

...would be against that, given how bloody this conflict has been?

A defense force. To actually make defend their sovereignty. Surely THAT's not asking too much. To insist that a Palestinian state be completely demilitarized is to insist that such a state level in perpetual humiliation and perpetually at Israel's sufferance. Why is that any less unfair than expecting Israel to live at the Arab world's sufferance?

Others may have other, less-positive reasons.

Some are probably in the "PEP" ("progressive EXCEPT for Palestine")category, and still want to make sure that a Palestinian state doesn't survive and that Israel ends up with the West Bank after all. Some have bought into the "All Arabs are barbarians" meme.

I don't know the mind of this entire group.

But I do know this...it isn't reasonable to expect the Palestinian side to accept a settlement that says "Israel can be trusted with the right to self-defense but you guys can't". Any nation has to have some sort of military force, even a symbolic one, simply to defend its sovereignty. You could have limits on what the force had(as has been the case with Japan, a nation that was far more militarily unreasonable and uncontrollable than Palestine ever has been).

I don't want an independent Palestine to be using force. I just want it to have the stature of a real nation. This is why it can't be completely demilitarized.

It would probably be easier to get Hamas to reduce its weaponry if this weren't being seen as leading to a situation where a future Palestinian state was strategically helpless and would have to accept the IDF rushing back in and re-establishing the Occupation anytime some future Israeli government wanted to.

You don't think Israelis have a legitimate right to fear that Tel Aviv and Jerusalem become Sderot, or worse?

They should just trust everything will be okay?

Seriously?

It isn't reasonable for the Palestinian state to make its sovereignty and independence conditional(which is what insisting on a totally demilitarized Palestinian state means).

I get it that Israelis need to be shown that they can trust. Equally, Palestinians need to be shown the same. They have no reason to simply assume that the Israeli government would never launch an unprovoked attack against Palestine, would never attempt to re-establish the Occupation, would never make Palestinian sovereignty a mockery. Palestinians HAVE to be given absolute assurances, by some means, that once they have a state, that state can never be taken away. Without some sort of defense force(at least a small one)they have nothing that assures them of that at all.

You speak of Sderot, Shira. What you don't get is that, without having some sort of defense force, Palestinians in an independent state would live in perpetual fear of some revanchist coalition coming to power in Israel and trying to re-take the West Bank, trying to re-establish the misery they have just escaped, a misery a hundred, maybe a thousand times worse than what folks in Sderot went through. You need to admit that Palestinians have as much reason for distrust as the Israeli side does. Admitting that is simply about showing the Palestinian side in this dispute the respect and empathy it deserves.

Both sides have cause for wariness...not just the Israelis. It's not as if, once a peace deal was reached, every Israeli government for the rest of eternity would be led by living saints. That can't be said for any country on the planet.

What the hell are you talking about? This is just more demonization, and as I figured, dehumanization. You simply refuse to see genuine Israeli fears as legitimate, as you always try to paint those fears as something illegitimate like racism...

And you can't expect people on the Palestinian side to accept a settlement based on the assumption that "Israel can have an army but you can't, because Israel is just better than you". No one is going to make peace if they're asked to concede their own moral inferiority in the bargain.

Israel doesn't have to keep shouting "we're morally superior, we're morally superior" all through all of this.

You don't think Palestinians have a legitimate right to fear that, having an independent state without any defense force at all, the IDF would swoop in and revoke Palestinian independence, restoring the Occupation and probably causing any abandoned settlements to be re-built and new ones built alongside them?

Israelis don't have a monopoly on reasons for distrust here. Have some empathy for Palestinians and what they've been through. It's not too much for them to be able to expect that, once they have a state, that state is to be there for good.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

but it can only make peace with the Palestinians if it drops its assumption of its own moral superiority and admits that Palestinians have reasons to fear too...after all, the Occupation was re-established after the abandonment of Oslo when it was never supposed to be re-established again after the PA was created.

You are still expecting Palestinians to concede that Israel is the greater victim in this dispute. You can't expect an occupied nation to concede that of its occupiers. Why should they?

Israel assumes it's moral superiority over Palestinians and they're bigger victims?

Come on.

Stick to provable facts....

Some hold the racist assumption that Arabs, no matter what, can't ever be trusted.

You can't make peace on the assumption that one side can be trusted and the other side can't, shira.

Israelis (in particular the Jews) have to be given some benefit of the doubt WRT taking risks given how hostile Palestinians are and recent history (giving up land for rockets).

You can't just criticize and condemn (or demonize as you do) w/o taking these things into consideration.

I don't say anything about the Israeli government that I wouldn't say about the U.S. government(and I have said many of the same things about the U.S.)

Also, I'm not sure that when we speak of "antisemitism" among Palestinians that it means the same thing as among, say, Germans or Poles. What gets labeled that is probably, in a significant number of cases, simply the resentment that one people would feel against a state that oppresses them, especially since that state over and over again(and this is something it has no moral right to do)equates itself with "the Jews", as if the Israeli government speaks for and represents every Jewish person on the planet, which it doesn't and which it never has done. If this territory had been conquered by the Crusaders, they'd be saying the same things about "those Catholic bastards".

Were Palestinian self-determination to be realized(and realized without poison pills such as Bibi's arrogant "security concept")you would see a lot of such feelings drain away very quickly. Not all, but a lot. People don't hate anywhere near as much when they aren't oppressed.

And also a lot of it would disperse, I suspect, even now, if the Israeli government would stop expecting Palestinians to believe that Israelis have it WORSE than they do and that Israelis are the greater victims in this conflict. That simply isn't the case and it's never been fair to expect Palestinians to accept that it was. Also, an admission that Palestinians have suffered and that at least some of them didn't deserve to would help change such feelings.

all I can find is what id being said about the poll but not the poll it self, however I did find this recent poll conducted by this group

The joint Israeli Palestinian Poll (JIPP)

This project is a joint initiative of the Truman Institute for the Advancement of Peace at the Hebrew University, Jerusalem and the Palestinian Center for Policy and Survey Research (PSR) in Ramallah headed by Dr. Khalil Shikaki.

The principal investigator on the Israeli side is Dr. Jacob Shamir from the Department of Communication and Journalism and the Truman Institute at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem. The principal investigator on the Palestinian side is Dr. Khalil Shikaki from PSR.

http://truman.huji.ac.il/aboutPolls.asp

and the poll itself

Israeli Poll #(36) 12-21/06/2011 ; N= 604
(Palestinian Poll #(40) 16-18/06/2011; N=1196)
*Listed below are the questions asked in the Israeli survey, and the comparable Palestinian questions. When Israeli and
Palestinian questions differ, the Palestinian version is italicized.

http://truman.huji.ac.il/upload/truman_site_poll36_June2011.pdf

It would be interesting to see if the English version of the poll contains literal translations of the questions that Palestinians were actually asked.

Think the major news media outlets would let this one slip by if Israelis held these views?

Remember, there shalt be but ONE narrative and these poll results do NOT conform to that narrative.

So what's all this business about a pro-Israeli media? Is it pro-Israel because it's not completely 100% pro-Palestinian?

:eyes:

at least as of my post time 1.22 am cdt perhaps they'll add Monday or something huh? but despair not a goodly number of pro-Israel blogs have picked up this shocking story they are linking back to JPost

http://www.theisraelproject.org/site/c.hsJPK0PIJpH/b.672581/k.12D7/The_Israel_Project__Facts_For_A_Better_Future.htm

albeit TIPs did have an article by Jennifer Mizrahi about the 'social media mentioned in the OP's article

http://www.theisraelproject.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=hsJPK0PIJpH&b=6415481&ct=1091645

eta nothing about the poll however

The Israel Project (TIP) is a U.S.-headquartered 501(c)3 non-profit group that describes its mission as being "devoted to educating the press and the public about Israel while promoting security, freedom and peace. The Israel Project provides journalists, leaders and opinion-makers accurate information about Israel. The Israel Project is not related to any government or government agency."<1>

Message Machine
While stressing that it seeks to provide "accurate" information, TIP is explicit about its sympathies. "As Israel faces threats from Iran and their proxies Hezbollah and Hamas, TIP is working to protect Israel and your global Jewish family," it states on its family.<2> It also states that "TIP regularly hosts press briefings featuring leading Israeli spokespeople and analysts that give journalists an opportunity to get information and answers to their questions face-to-face. By providing journalists with the facts, context and visuals they need, TIP causes hundreds of millions of people around the world to see a more positive public face of Israel. This helps protect Israel, reduce anti-Semitism and increase pride in Israel," it states on its website.<1>

In its self description for Guidestar, a non-profit information service, TIP states that it "identifies and proactively communicates proven effective messages that encourage people to support Israel and policies that will make Israel safer. Using sophisticated public opinion research to identify messages, themes and visuals that will bring support to key policies. TIP has trained thousands of influential policy leaders, opinion elites and spokespeople to help strengthen Israel's image in international media."<3>

"Conducted outreach and education to improve US understanding of the vital nature of a strong relationship between Israel and other countries around the world, primarily the US," it continues.<3>


Critical Commentary
Comment by Jeffrey Blankfort<4>:

...you should recall that the advisory board of The Israel Project is made up of Sen. Saxby Chambliss , R-GA, Sen. Norm Coleman, R-MN, Sen. Bill Nelson, D-FL, Sen. Rick Santorum, R-PA, Sen. Arlen J. Spector D-PA, Sen. Ron Wyden, D-OR, Rep. Rob Andrews, D-NJ, Rep. Shelley Berkley, D-NV, Rep. Tom Davis, R-VA, Rep. Eliot Engel , D-NY, Rep. Frank Pallone, D-NJ, Rep. Jon Porter, R-NV, Rep. Jim Saxton, R-NJ, Rep. Brad Sherman, D-CA, and Rep. Joe Wilson, R-SC.



The Israel Project Media Fellowship
"The Israel Project Media Fellowship trains students on techniques designed to increase accurate and fair coverage of Israel and Jews in the news media...

"Past speakers who have addressed the TIP Media Fellows include Wolfe Blitzer of CNN, Alan Elsner of Reuters, Bill Kristol of The Weekly Standard, Eleanor Clift of Newsweek and the McLaughlin Group, Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune, Tony Blankly of the Washington Times, as well as strategic communications experts, Stan Greenberg PhD and Neil Newhouse...

"The staff for the TIP Media Fellowships includes Marcus Sheff, former political reporter and communications executive; Laura Kam, former co-director of the Anti-Defamation League's Israel Office; Jennifer Packer, former journalist for the L.A. Times and Dallas Morning News; as well as TIP Founder and President Jennifer Laszlo Mizrahi and Meagan Buren - all of whom are experts in strategic communications and Middle East affairs." <5>


Funding
On its website TIP does not report any details of the origins of its funding, it does include a graph on its website seeking to reassure potential donors that the bulk of contributions are spent on program services.<6>

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=The_Israel_Project

On a new poll of 1,010 respondents in the West Bank and Gaza:

The data clearly shows a Palestinian mindset that it is critical
to understand in order to move forward in the conflict.

The data explores the Palestinian mindset toward statehood,
a unilateral declaration, the existence (current and continued) of Israel
as a homeland for the Jewish people, continued hatred of Israel
and information on where Palestinians get their news.

http://www.theisraelproject.org/site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=hsJPK0PIJpH&b=3587015&ct=10940423¬oc=1

wonder id she has this posted on her Arabic Facebook page LOL

It may be, or may not be. I'd like to know the questions that were asked, whether they were translated into similar Arabic as in other polls, the total methodology, who was polled, how ,under what circumstances, and a host of other issues. If the methodology is sound, then why do the results differ from some prior polls? I don't have answers to these questions, only more questions after that.

And yes, Arabs should be invited to join the discussion--except you don't think this is really intended to be an honest discussion, and you may be right.

But what if the poll is accurate?

http://www.theisraelproject.org/atf/cf/%7B84dc5887-741e-4056-8d91-a389164bc94e%7D/2011-07_PALESTINIAN_SURVEY_FQ.PDF

but seeing as how you posted long after the poll was posted I find it VERY hard to believe you did not already have a look yourself, but enjoy BTW people reading the poll should pay close attention to the exact wording of the questions and the way the answers are tabulated it's quite 'interesting' to say the least

PA TV host sends "best wishes"
to "our glorious" prisoner
who transported suicide bomber
to attack that killed 15, including 7 children

http://palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=5581