Why do you support the "Palestinians" [Archive]

synthesis

7th January 2004, 04:11

Don't the Jews have just as much right to preserve their culture, nation, and livelihood?

I believe these quotes should adequately respond to your question. If not, feel free to ask for further clarification.

"Between ourselves it must be clear that there is no room for both peoples together in this country. We shall not achieve our goal if the Arabs are in this small country. There is no other way than to transfer the Arabs from here to neighboring countries - all of them. Not one village, not one tribe should be left."
Joseph Weitz, head of the Jewish Agency's Colonization Department in 1940.

"How can we return the occupied territories? There is nobody to return them to."
Golda Meir, March 8, 1969.

"We must expel Arabs and take their places."
David Ben Gurion, future Prime Minister of Israel, 1937

"We shall reduce the Arab population to a community of woodcutters and waiters"
Uri Lubrani, PM Ben-Gurion's special adviser on Arab Affairs, 1960.

"If we thought that instead of 200 Palestinian fatalities, 2,000 dead would put an end to the fighting at a stroke, we would use much more force...."
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, quoted in Associated Press, November 16, 2000.

Arab expatriation serves the Israeli plan to "spirit the penniless population across the frontier by denying it employment...Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried away discreetly and circumspectly."
Theodore Herzl, founder of the World Zionist Organization Complete Diaries, June 12, 1895 entry.

" The present map of Palestine was drawn by the British mandate. The Jewish people have another map which our youth and adults should strive to fulfill -- From the Nile to the Euphrates."
David ben Gurion

"It lies upon the people's shoulders to prepare for the war, but it lies upon the Israeli army to carry out the fight with the ultimate object of erecting the Israeli Empire." Moshe Dayan (Israel Defense and Foreign Minister), on February 12 1952. Radio Israel.

" If the General Assembly were to vote by 121 votes to 1 in favor of "Israel" returning to the armistice lines-- (pre June 1967 borders) Israel would refuse to comply with the decision."
Aba Eban, Israeli Foreign Minister, New York Times June 19, 1967

"There was no such thing as Palestinians, they never existed."
Golda Maier Israeli Prime Minister June 15, 1969.

"The Partition of Palestine [by the U.N.] is illegal. It will never be recognized .... Jerusalem was and will for ever be our capital. Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for Ever."
Menachem Begin

“Neither Jewish morality nor Jewish tradition can be used to disallow terror as a means of war... We are very far from any moral hesitations when concerned with the national struggle. First and foremost, terror is for us a part of the political war appropriate for the circumstances of today...”
Yitzhak Shamir, Israeli Prime Minister

There are some others that you may wish to read at these websites:
http://www.al-awda.org/index.php?page=Famous%20Quotes
http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Fa...s/Story703.html (http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Famous-Zionist-Quotes/Story703.html)

I think it is pretty obvious that there is a remarkable disparity between the words of Zionist "freedom-loving" lobbyists, and the arrogance of actual Zionist politicians and policy-makers.

AmericanZionist2004

7th January 2004, 04:38

After the First World War, 35,000 square miles in the eastern part of the former Ottoman Empire was set aside as land for "Palestinians". That parcel of land, larger than the whole of Israel by 24,000 square miles, was called "Transjordan" and today "Jordan". Other than this, there is no Palestine and no proof that they ever had the right to a separate country. If they want to live in Israel as "Israeli Arabs" then fine. But the extremists who routinely call for Israel's destruction should be left out of whatever steps are taken toward peace in the Middle East.

synthesis

7th January 2004, 04:51

Other than this, there is no Palestine and no proof that they ever had the right to a separate country.

Just so the parameters of the debate are set, could you please define what gives a people the right to a seperate country?

AmericanZionist2004

7th January 2004, 04:53

Pete

7th January 2004, 04:56

After the First World War, 35,000 square miles in the eastern part of the former Ottoman Empire was set aside as land for "Palestinians".

What right do often-times ignorant Euro-centric map makers have in deciding where the Palestinians should live and did live? History tells us how arbitrary those lines where if we look at the division of the Kurds between atleast 2 states.

AmericanZionist2004

7th January 2004, 04:58

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 05:56 AM

After the First World War, 35,000 square miles in the eastern part of the former Ottoman Empire was set aside as land for "Palestinians".

What right do often-times ignorant Euro-centric map makers have in deciding where the Palestinians should live and did live? History tells us how arbitrary those lines where if we look at the division of the Kurds between atleast 2 states.
But even today, Jordan's population is 70% Palestinian.

"The truth is Palestine is Jordan and Jordan is Palestine."
-Hafez Assad

Pete

7th January 2004, 04:59

Today, yes. There are 3 million Palestinians in exile currently, I am pretty sure that many live in the occupied territories. Half of the Palestinian population does not live in Palestine because they have been forced from it.

AmericanZionist2004

7th January 2004, 05:03

More accurately, Arabs living in the West Bank were told by leaders of surrounding Arab nations that they should leave Israel in order to not interfere with the Arab war effort on the Jews. WHen it turned out that the Arabs lost, the Palestinians tried to force their way back into Israel and called themselves "refugees". Those few who stayed were known as "Israeli Arabs" and not Palestinians.

synthesis

7th January 2004, 05:07

Well, many claim that we stole their land. I'm not saying nothing could ever be worked out, I'm just saying that the Jews did not "steal Palestinian land" because there was never a nation called Palestine.

I'm not quite sure what you're trying to imply here. You say that since the land of Palestine was not properly defined as a nation through conventional borders and bureaucratic registry, that gives Israelis the right to expel the indigenous people who lived there?

AmericanZionist2004

7th January 2004, 05:09

Israel hasn't been expelling Palestinians. They still live within Israeli borders. In many cases, that's the problem.

synthesis

7th January 2004, 05:11

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 06:09 AM
Israel hasn't been expelling Palestinians. They still live within Israeli borders. In many cases, that's the problem.
I am merely comparing the views and actions of Israeli policy-makers with your seemingly idealistic view of what is occuring in Israel.

Have you ever heard of the Jenin incident?

Saint-Just

7th January 2004, 10:19

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 06:09 AM
Israel hasn't been expelling Palestinians. They still live within Israeli borders. In many cases, that's the problem.
Arab countries adopted the ultimate goal of pushing the Israeli's into the sea. However, the Israeli's think that they have a right to a far larger area than they have since it was promised to them in the bible. Many of the Palestinians that live in Israeli borders are Palestinians that live in areas that Israel has taken by force, you can hardly expect them to have moved out of their homes because the Israelis claim the land.

The Jews deserve a homeland, however it is very difficult to relocate such a large set of people into one place and then remove those that lived there previously. The problems in the Middle East are hardly suprising and there is not solution apart from a long and hard road to peace.

The British knew it would be a problem to give the Jews this land, they offered the Jews Uganda before what is now Israel, however the Jews rejected this.

Guest1

7th January 2004, 13:09

I agree, look at North America, there was never a country for thes "Natives", I don't thinkt hey existed, so Whites couldn't have slaughtered them by the millions and stolen their land.

Palestinians don't exist, so none have been killed. None have been expelled.

You sir, are guilty of genocide. Anyone who seeks to exterminate an entire people, be it through the gas chamber or through rewriting history, is a criminal.

D'anconia, don't think you're above my criticism either. What do you mean by "Palestinians", what are you implying with the quotation marks?

James

7th January 2004, 14:59

Like everyone i imagine - i wish for them to just live peacefully. I'm totally against those crazy morons who blow themselves up; and i'm just as against the equivalent israeli actions.

Israel has the ability to stop fighting, as it is one force who are "there". They can be stopped from fighting, by a simple command. I suspect the militant pal's arn't just one force, who can simply be stopped by a command.

But then if the israeli's stop - will the pals?

I see the israeli argument - they have been persecuted loads, and probably are from that area.
They came back, cultivated and improved the land they had, then got invaded by those arab nations around it. When israel retaliated and kicked ass, then took extra land - the arabs started to seemingly cry. This was pathetic in my opinion.

I can't see a solution to the matter.

Intifada

7th January 2004, 15:45

i support the palestinians in their ongoing struggle for freedom from their "jewish" oppressors.

D'Anconia

7th January 2004, 22:05

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 7 2004, 02:09 PM
I agree, look at North America, there was never a country for thes "Natives", I don't thinkt hey existed, so Whites couldn't have slaughtered them by the millions and stolen their land.

Palestinians don't exist, so none have been killed. None have been expelled.

You sir, are guilty of genocide. Anyone who seeks to exterminate an entire people, be it through the gas chamber or through rewriting history, is a criminal.

D'anconia, don't think you're above my criticism either. What do you mean by "Palestinians", what are you implying with the quotation marks?
This post was made in the "Larry Miller on Israel thread" :

He makes the claim that Palestine is not a country, and there are no such thing as Palestinians. Yet he fails to realize that prior to 1945, Israel was not a country, and there was no such thing as an Israeli.

Another thing, the land has been called Palestine for a long time. Even Balfour wrote about Etablishing a jewish homeland...in palestine.
Remember, British Mandate Palestine

Everyone living there (including both Jewish and Arab), are called Palestinians.

I began putting the word "Palestinians" in quotes to distinguish between the Jewish and the Arab Palestinians. I do not mean any disrespect to those who may call themselves "Palestinian." I am using the quotes to demonstrate the absurdity of the point this person was trying to make.

D'Anconia

7th January 2004, 22:10

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 05:11 AM

[b]Don't the Jews have just as much right to preserve their culture, nation, and livelihood?

I believe these quotes should adequately respond to your question. If not, feel free to ask for further clarification.

"Between ourselves it must be clear that there is no room for both peoples together in this country. We shall not achieve our goal if the Arabs are in this small country. There is no other way than to transfer the Arabs from here to neighboring countries - all of them. Not one village, not one tribe should be left."
Joseph Weitz, head of the Jewish Agency's Colonization Department in 1940.

"How can we return the occupied territories? There is nobody to return them to."
Golda Meir, March 8, 1969.

"We must expel Arabs and take their places."
David Ben Gurion, future Prime Minister of Israel, 1937

"We shall reduce the Arab population to a community of woodcutters and waiters"
Uri Lubrani, PM Ben-Gurion's special adviser on Arab Affairs, 1960.

"If we thought that instead of 200 Palestinian fatalities, 2,000 dead would put an end to the fighting at a stroke, we would use much more force...."
Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Barak, quoted in Associated Press, November 16, 2000.

Arab expatriation serves the Israeli plan to "spirit the penniless population across the frontier by denying it employment...Both the process of expropriation and the removal of the poor must be carried away discreetly and circumspectly."
Theodore Herzl, founder of the World Zionist Organization Complete Diaries, June 12, 1895 entry.

" The present map of Palestine was drawn by the British mandate. The Jewish people have another map which our youth and adults should strive to fulfill -- From the Nile to the Euphrates."
David ben Gurion

"It lies upon the people's shoulders to prepare for the war, but it lies upon the Israeli army to carry out the fight with the ultimate object of erecting the Israeli Empire." Moshe Dayan (Israel Defense and Foreign Minister), on February 12 1952. Radio Israel.

" If the General Assembly were to vote by 121 votes to 1 in favor of "Israel" returning to the armistice lines-- (pre June 1967 borders) Israel would refuse to comply with the decision."
Aba Eban, Israeli Foreign Minister, New York Times June 19, 1967

"There was no such thing as Palestinians, they never existed."
Golda Maier Israeli Prime Minister June 15, 1969.

"The Partition of Palestine is illegal. It will never be recognized .... Jerusalem was and will for ever be our capital. Eretz Israel will be restored to the people of Israel. All of it. And for Ever."
Menachem Begin

“Neither Jewish morality nor Jewish tradition can be used to disallow terror as a means of war... We are very far from any moral hesitations when concerned with the national struggle. First and foremost, terror is for us a part of the political war appropriate for the circumstances of today...”
Yitzhak Shamir, Israeli Prime Minister

There are some others that you may wish to read at these websites:
http://www.al-awda.org/index.php?page=Famous%20Quotes
http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Fa...s/Story703.html (http://www.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Famous-Zionist-Quotes/Story703.html)

I think it is pretty obvious that there is a remarkable disparity between the words of Zionist "freedom-loving" lobbyists, and the arrogance of actual Zionist politicians and policy-makers.

These quotes do not answer my question. I asked if the Jews should also have a right to their culture, nation, etc. These quotes do not speak as to whether you believe they have those rights.
They only demonstrate that the Jews are, in fact, taking measures to preserve the rights they believe they are entitled to.

Do the Jews have the same rights to these things as the "Palestinians" do?

Guest1

7th January 2004, 22:45

depends, do you think the Palestinians have the right to create a distinctly racist theocracy and call it a democracy?

do you think they have the right to have laws that ensure that they can eat away at the numbers of the Jewish population, making it very difficult for them to enter the country, gain citizenship and if they do, making it easy for them to lose it just by leaving for an extended period of time?

if so, then yes, they have the right to this national identity. This national identity. because most nations don't go to these extremes. in any other country, measures designed to control the populations of natives, and to discourage interracial marriage would be called racist.

synthesis

7th January 2004, 22:47

These quotes do not answer my question. I asked if the Jews should also have a right to their culture, nation, etc. These quotes do not speak as to whether you believe they have those rights.

I believe that, theoretically, the Jews do have a right to their own nation. I do not believe that they have the right to rob another group of their homeland to do so.

Therefore, by your own skewed logic, I suppose I do not support the right of the Jews to the particular area that they have claimed for themselves.

The point of the quotes was to avoid any extraneous discussion and get to the point of the matter. To you, it may be "the right of the Jews to self determination." To me, it is genocide, displacement, and oppression.

They only demonstrate that the Jews are, in fact, taking measures to preserve the rights they believe they are entitled to.

Perhaps if there were some uninhabited island that they could reside in, or something to that effect, I would be a great fan of such a movement.

As it stands, however, the claim of "a land without people for a people without a land" is utter bullshit.

Do the Jews have the same rights to these things as the "Palestinians" do?

Yes, but I believe that the Palestinians have the right to the particular area which the Jews claimed as their own.

I could ask you the same question. Do the Palestinians have the same rights to their own nation and land as the Jews?

Bolshevika

7th January 2004, 23:04

There is no need for Israel to exist at all. This blabber about all the Arabs want to do is "drive the jews into the sea" is senseless, because for years under the British mandate and Ottoman empire the Jews and Arabs lived in harmony.

Jews already have a homeland, it's called the United States of America.

D'Anconia

7th January 2004, 23:33

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 11:47 PM

These quotes do not answer my question. I asked if the Jews should also have a right to their culture, nation, etc. These quotes do not speak as to whether you believe they have those rights.

I believe that, theoretically, the Jews do have a right to their own nation. I do not believe that they have the right to rob another group of their homeland to do so.

Therefore, by your own skewed logic, I suppose I do not support the right of the Jews to the particular area that they have claimed for themselves.

The point of the quotes was to avoid any extraneous discussion and get to the point of the matter. To you, it may be "the right of the Jews to self determination." To me, it is genocide, displacement, and oppression.

They only demonstrate that the Jews are, in fact, taking measures to preserve the rights they believe they are entitled to.

Perhaps if there were some uninhabited island that they could reside in, or something to that effect, I would be a great fan of such a movement.

As it stands, however, the claim of "a land without people for a people without a land" is utter bullshit.

Do the Jews have the same rights to these things as the "Palestinians" do?

Yes, but I believe that the Palestinians have the right to the particular area which the Jews claimed as their own.

I could ask you the same question. Do the Palestinians have the same rights to their own nation and land as the Jews?
Since the Jews do have a right to a homeland, as you have conceded, where do you suggest that it should be?

If not in the land that has been historically recognized as belonging to them for thousands of years, then where?

If I understand you correctly, you claim that the`"Palestinians" have a right to the land because they lived there until they were forced out by th U.N. and the Jews.

If this is the case, how is it any different from the Jews being forced off the land by the Romans 2000 years ago?

Don't Change Your Name

7th January 2004, 23:43

Great quotes DyerMaker. Reading those quotes show that in fact, those "Iraelies" are nothing but Nazis, but replacing the word "Aryan" with "Israeli" and the word "Jews" with the words "Palestinians" or "Arabs".

BTW, opposing the Jewish robbery on Israel doesnt make you a nazi as capitalists usually think, trying to make people believe the "Communism=Fascism" thing.

synthesis

8th January 2004, 00:51

Since the Jews do have a right to a homeland, as you have conceded, where do you suggest that it should be?

I don't know. There is no easy answer here. The issue here is that the Israelis came not as immigrants but as invaders.

Perhaps decent, working Israelis could stay, and their politicians could move to, say, Bikini Atoll? :)

If not in the land that has been historically recognized as belonging to them for thousands of years, then where?

Well, for one thing, the majority of the Jewish people who have entered modern Israel are not the same Jews as were expelled by the Romans. Most of them are converts from tribes in and around Turkey, to my knowledge.

Secondly, this is an appeal to an unnamed authority. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/a...-authority.html (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html)

Whose opinion that Palestine belongs to the Jews is so strong as to make it fact?

Lastly, there are a significant number of religious Jews hold the opinion that living in Israel is in opposition to Jewish religion and culture. See the Neturei Karta organization as an example.

If I understand you correctly, you claim that the`"Palestinians" have a right to the land because they lived there until they were forced out by th U.N. and the Jews.

If this is the case, how is it any different from the Jews being forced off the land by the Romans 2000 years ago?

It's rather simple. Palestinians had been living in the area for over 1,300 years, and actually had homes there before the occupation. Jews had been forced off the land for almost 2,000 years and had managed to find pretty comfortable existences in certain places since then, such as America and Britain. They are the wealthiest minority group in America, at least; I'm not sure about Britain.

D'Anconia

8th January 2004, 02:36

I don't know. There is no easy answer here. The issue here is that the Israelis came not as immigrants but as invaders.

Perhaps decent, working Israelis could stay, and their politicians could move to, say, Bikini Atoll? :)

Well, for one thing, the majority of the Jewish people who have entered modern Israel are not the same Jews as were expelled by the Romans. Most of them are converts from tribes in and around Turkey, to my knowledge.

Secondly, this is an appeal to an unnamed authority. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/a...-authority.html (http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-authority.html)

Whose opinion that Palestine belongs to the Jews is so strong as to make it fact?

It's rather simple. Palestinians had been living in the area for over 1,300 years, and actually had homes there before the occupation. Jews had been forced off the land for almost 2,000 years and had managed to find pretty comfortable existences in certain places since then, such as America and Britain. They are the wealthiest minority group in America, at least; I'm not sure about Britain. [/QUOTE]

So then you will only be satisfied if the outcome is "Palestinians" in, Jews out. The Jews have a right to a homeland just not here, and we don't really care where (although there seems to be no place acceptable to anyone) as long as they're gone. If I have oversimplified here, please explain further.

Also, are you trying to say that the Jews did not live in Palestine and that the land never belonged to them?
I think their occupation and ownership of the land at one point in history is an accepted historical fact.

Hiero

8th January 2004, 02:38

" A lie told often enought becomes the truth" Lenin
It seems to be this way with the Palastine Israeli conflict alot of bullshit adn more bullshit.

Umoja

8th January 2004, 02:54

Why don't the Native Americans have a right to their own country?

What about the natives of Australia (forgot what they call themselves)?

I don't see how a group of European people have a right to a homeland in the middle east, while people of non-european ancestery don't have a right to their own lands. Also, why do the European-people in the middle east have a right to violate numerous UN agreements and sweep the native semetic people of the area aside? Because the semetic people living their didn't have a nation, I'm sure they had a nation, they lived their and they governed themselves but not in a manner condusive to European ideas of nationalism. The same thing can be said about Xhosa-land, Zululand, Lethoso-Land, and other areas in South Africa which weren't "really nations" so they were swept aside. What a load of crap. It seems that if people are "niggers" or "sand-niggers" they can easily be swept aside by the superior civilizing power of the oh so wonderful europeans.

AmericanZionist2004

8th January 2004, 03:12

Originally posted by D'Anconia+Jan 8 2004, 12:33 AM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (D'Anconia @ Jan 8 2004, 12:33 AM)
[email protected] 7 2004, 11:47 PM

These quotes do not answer my question. I asked if the Jews should also have a right to their culture, nation, etc. These quotes do not speak as to whether you believe they have those rights.

I believe that, theoretically, the Jews do have a right to their own nation. I do not believe that they have the right to rob another group of their homeland to do so.

Therefore, by your own skewed logic, I suppose I do not support the right of the Jews to the particular area that they have claimed for themselves.

The point of the quotes was to avoid any extraneous discussion and get to the point of the matter. To you, it may be "the right of the Jews to self determination." To me, it is genocide, displacement, and oppression.

They only demonstrate that the Jews are, in fact, taking measures to preserve the rights they believe they are entitled to.

Perhaps if there were some uninhabited island that they could reside in, or something to that effect, I would be a great fan of such a movement.

As it stands, however, the claim of "a land without people for a people without a land" is utter bullshit.

Do the Jews have the same rights to these things as the "Palestinians" do?

Yes, but I believe that the Palestinians have the right to the particular area which the Jews claimed as their own.

I could ask you the same question. Do the Palestinians have the same rights to their own nation and land as the Jews?
Since the Jews do have a right to a homeland, as you have conceded, where do you suggest that it should be?

If not in the land that has been historically recognized as belonging to them for thousands of years, then where?

If I understand you correctly, you claim that the`"Palestinians" have a right to the land because they lived there until they were forced out by th U.N. and the Jews.

If this is the case, how is it any different from the Jews being forced off the land by the Romans 2000 years ago? [/b]
The Jews were never completely absent from Israel. In fact, the swampy land was made fertile by hard-working Jews, and they helped settle the land and make it very profitable without ever forcing out the resident Arabs, decades before the founding of Israel.

So one cannot say we were not there, or that we came and mercilessly conquered the Arabs. Israel is NOT colonialist or imperialist because its first onslaught of Jewish settlers en masse (in addition to those who lived there) were not looking to colonize the land for any Western country, but primarily to escape persecution, and they felt that their Holy Land was the best place to do so.

synthesis

8th January 2004, 03:48

So then you will only be satisfied if the outcome is "Palestinians" in, Jews out.

Willful ignorance and blatant disregard for what was actually said.

Perhaps decent, working Israelis could stay, and their politicians could move to, say, Bikini Atoll?

I think that most Israeli politicians should be tried for war crimes. That's just my personal opinion, though.

If I have oversimplified here, please explain further.

Yeah, I'd very well say you did.

Also, are you trying to say that the Jews did not live in Palestine and that the land never belonged to them?
I think their occupation and ownership of the land at one point in history is an accepted historical fact.

This is completely different from the claim that you made before.

If not in the land that has been historically recognized as belonging to them for thousands of years, then where?

What you said originally claims, in no unsure terms, that the land of Israel has belonged to the Jews since the Diaspora, and before that. Now you are trying to say that I denied that Israel belonged to them at one point in history.

Yeah, it did, then some other people scooped it up 600 years later. Given that it's been nearly 2,000 years since their religious ancestors left, I don't think it's too unreasonable to say that they probably lost their claim to it.

In fact, the swampy land was made fertile by hard-working Jews, and they helped settle the land and make it very profitable without ever forcing out the resident Arabs, decades before the founding of Israel.

The people who preceded the current Israeli political structure may well have been decent people; I have never said that these people must go.

However, modern Israel has morphed into something completely different: barbaric and sadistic. The fault of the original settlers? Of course not. But things have changed considerably.

Israel is NOT colonialist or imperialist because its first onslaught of Jewish settlers en masse (in addition to those who lived there) were not looking to colonize the land for any Western country, but primarily to escape persecution, and they felt that their Holy Land was the best place to do so.

I don't mean to be pedantic, but the fact that the first Jewish settlers were not agents for a country does not mean that the policies of the country cannot be colonialist, it means that the country itself cannot be a colony. They are two completely different things. Israeli politicians have been colonizing Eratz Israel for some time now.

In any case, I advise you to review my quotes.

D'Anconia

9th January 2004, 00:29

Yeah, it did, then some other people scooped it up 600 years later. Given that it's been nearly 2,000 years since their religious ancestors left, I don't think it's too unreasonable to say that they probably lost their claim to it.

So then how many millennia will we have to wait before the "Palestinians" have lost their claim to it?

D'Anconia

9th January 2004, 00:38

Willful ignorance and blatant disregard for what was actually said.

You said that the "Palestinians" have the rights to the land and that Israel has lost their claim to it. You also have not been able to suggest a serious solution to the question of a homeland for the Jews that you claim to support (I believe you suggested Bikini Atoll, merely as a joke). So I think that I have correctly summed up your position as you believe that the "Palestinians" should get the land and taht you apparently could care less where the Jews go as long as the "Palestinians" are appeased.

Until someone can offer a serious alternative to the current situation in Israel for a Jewsih homeland, I think your position is best summed up as: "Palestinians" in, Jews out.

synthesis

9th January 2004, 01:40

Good God, man, are you incapable of reading what I write? How many times am I going to have to repeat the exact same quote?

Perhaps decent, working Israelis could stay, and their politicians could move to, say, Bikini Atoll?

The obvious implication of this statement is that the common people of Israel are not the problem if they wish to peacefully coexist with the Palestinian natives. The real problems are the genocidal politicians and religious zealots who view Israel and Jerusalem as an "all-for-nothing" proposition.

I think your position is best summed up as: "Palestinians" in, Jews out.

Only if your own position can be summed up as: complete distortion of our conversation.

D'Anconia

9th January 2004, 01:47

The obvious implication of this statement is that the common people of Israel are not the problem if they wish to peacefully coexist with the Palestinian natives. The real problems are the genocidal politicians and religious zealots who view Israel and Jerusalem as an "all-for-nothing" proposition.

You totally disregard the fact that the "Palestinian" politicians (Arafat and his successors) are just as bad. In addition to the fact that many "Palestinians" have no desire to peacefully coexist with the Jews. You act as if the Jews would just let all the "Palestinians" in that wanted in then everything woud be just hunky-dory. Surely, you must realize that this could not be further from the truth. Perhaps, the "Palestinians" could stay where they are and we could send Arafat and his ilk on a permanent vacation to the Falkland Islands.

The "genocidal" politicians of Israel have repeatedly offered the "Palestinians" compromises, but it is they, not the Israelis, who have refused to accept any concessions.

synthesis

9th January 2004, 02:38

You totally disregard the fact that the "Palestinian" politicians (Arafat and his successors) are just as bad.

They are more justified to do so, considering it was their people's land in the first place. I agree that the Palestinian side has its own share of genocidal politicians and religious zealots, but in this obvious case of resistance against occupation and invasion, I must support the resistance.

You act as if the Jews would just let all the "Palestinians" in that wanted in then everything woud be just hunky-dory.

It seems rather logical to me that if Israel ceased its various unscrupulous policies against innocent Palestinian people - displacement being the most important - the Palestinian people would have no cause to be upset.

The "genocidal" politicians of Israel have repeatedly offered the "Palestinians" compromises, but it is they, not the Israelis, who have refused to accept any concessions.

Hmm...

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0725-01.htm

Guest1

9th January 2004, 05:15

You also have not been able to suggest a serious solution to the question of a homeland for the Jews that you claim to support (I believe you suggested Bikini Atoll, merely as a joke).

I can offer you a solution, but first let's identify the problem: "a homeland for the Jews".

What's wrong with that statement? Can any peace result if this is a prerequisite to it? Peace cannot be born from racism. Religion has no place in the state.

I personally seek the destruction of Israel, as well as Palestine. A single democratic, secular nation for two peoples is the only way. Everything else is just racist propaganda so they don't have to accept that the other exists.

As for you usage of "Palestinians", it is becoming upsetting to me. You made your point to whoever was in the other thread, but it just jumps out every time I see it. People should be careful about messing with certain words.

Ex: Hitler is commonly accused of "the holocaust"

not very funny, is it?

D'Anconia

10th January 2004, 02:17

It seems rather logical to me that if Israel ceased its various unscrupulous policies against innocent Palestinian people - displacement being the most important - the Palestinian people would have no cause to be upset.

Would it not also seem logical that if the terrorist actions against the Israelis would come to an end then they would have more reason to be more amicable towards the Palestinians?

QUOTE
The "genocidal" politicians of Israel have repeatedly offered the "Palestinians" compromises, but it is they, not the Israelis, who have refused to accept any concessions.

Hmm...

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0725-01.htm

As for this, I think you should try to remember the Camp David Summit of summer 2000.

http://www.iris.org.il/concessions.htm

Barak was ready to offer a pullout form 95% of the West Bank. He also was ready to divide the city of Jerusalem, including giving the Temple Mount over to Palestinian control. Arafat rejected all of the concessions.

synthesis

10th January 2004, 21:21

Would it not also seem logical that if the terrorist actions against the Israelis would come to an end then they would have more reason to be more amicable towards the Palestinians?

The difference is that Israeli brutality is directly state-sanctioned - state-ordered, often.

However, if we read the article I posted...

Dramatic Palestinian moves, such as installing Mahmud Abbas as Prime Minister, successfully negotiating a three-month cease-fire against Israeli's by militant groups and cracking down on incitement against Israel, were to be matched by equally dramatic Israeli moves. These have yet to materialize.

The actions of Arafat are unfortunate, but it is important to remember that he and Abbas are two different people.

LuZhiming

11th January 2004, 00:06

Originally posted by D'[email protected] 10 2004, 03:17 AM
Barak was ready to offer a pullout form 95% of the West Bank. He also was ready to divide the city of Jerusalem, including giving the Temple Mount over to Palestinian control. Arafat rejected all of the concessions.

Now I have to step in. What you are saying is completely untrue. This is what the U.S. press has always complained, but is a lie. Arafat was offered a "sort of sovereignty over certain Arab streets in East Jeruslam," to quote Madaline Albright. East Jeruslam had already turned into a majority Jewish population. The Palestinians were given sovereignty over the Haram-As-Sharif mosque area, but not the area beneath it. Beneath it is the Temple Mount. Jeruslam was supposed to remain a unified capital of Israel, and Arafat's capital would be in the village of Abu Dees, below the walls of East Jeruslam. The large Jewish settlements such as Ma'ale Edumim, Efrat, and Gush Etzion, would remain under Jewish control, which extended Israel's Jeruslam boundaries deep into the West Bank. These lands with the settlements were the non negotiable parts of the West Bank. A ten mile Isralie buffer zone would surround Arafat's Palestinian state. Other Jewish settlements would remain, and some of them might be leased back to Israel on the basis that it was Palestinian land but Palestinians wouldn't be living on it for 25 year leases. In return, Israel would give the Palestinians part of the Negev desert and some territorial waters on the Dead Sea. You should remember that the area around the Dead Sea isn't a great prize by any means. You can't put houses on the Dead Sea. So instead of the 94-98% that Arafat was supposedly being offered, he was in reality offered about 45-46% of the occupied Arab West Bank and Gaza. So he was offered at most, 46% of the 22% of Palestine that was up for negotiation. And finally, it is important to know that there were heavy restrictions set on the Palestinian land. The state was not allowed to have an army or heavy weapons. The state had to get approval from Israel before making alliances with other countries, and was forbidden to introduce foreign forces west of the River Jordan. The deal gave Israel the right to send troops to the Jordan Valley if Israel was threatened by an Eastern invasion, the continuing control and management of water sources in the West Bank while giving a limited quota of the water to the Palestinians, and the right for Israeli aircrafts to fly over Palestinian airspace. Other contents included Israel creating warning stations in the mountains that overlooked the Jordan Valley and other lands, and both Palestinians and Israeli security forces would control border crossings from and to Jordan and Egypt. I think it's quite obvious why Arafat didn't accept, don't you think?

This result of the U.S. media is sickening to me, it is much to be lamented that the history of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict will be written in such a twisted fashion.

Osman Ghazi

11th January 2004, 01:08

The simple fact is that most of Palestine did not belong to the Jews and the Jews who did live there were Sephardis. Therefore, I cannot condone the invasion of the Ashkenazim who had no right to be there in the first place. I mean, Rome had all of the Mediterranean only 1700 years ago, so should all the Mediterranean secede back to Italy? Of course not. So the Jewish claim to Palestine had no legitimacy.

However, that being said, the Jews do live there now. I believe that since they would be incapable of living together harmoniously, Palestine should be divided into an Arab Nation (Palestine) and a Jewish nation (Israel). The borders are the only problem with that though. I think that the Israelis have known all along that sooner or later, Eratz Israel would be divied up between Jews and Arabs. That is more or less the point of their settlement program. It allows them to extend the future borders of Israel. Personally, I think it should be split 50/50 with the Jews having the coastal area that is actually makority Jewish population. And of course the Golan heights should secede back to Syria.