Israel / Palestine - the THREE state solution?

[Drewish]

But guys. The UN just voted that Palestine is now some observational thing and gave them a 'participation' award. That ends the killings right?

[Blind groper]

Remember that there never was a country called Palestine or a Palestinian State, at least not in the last 2500 years,

Which means exactly zero.

Palestine was a part of the Ottoman Empire till World War I, when that empire was dismantled. From WWI to WWII, Palestine was administered by the British. During that time, a number of Jews immigrated into Palestine. Then in WWII, the "Jewish Problem" emerged as an issue, and the utter bastards in government in Britain and the USA decided to create a Jewish homeland.

They did this by stealing the land off the Palestinians who had been living there for 1500 years under various governments. This deed was purest evil. The dispossessed Palestinians were forced to go to refugee camps in Jordan and other places.

The stolen land has now been given to Israel and to individual Israelis.

Now, I know damn well that Israel is there to stay. We cannot wave a magic wand and reverse history. I also know that Hamas is acting in a stupid, irresponsible, and destructive way in firing those rockets. However, bearing in mind what was done to the Palestinian people, the correct way to deal with this is for Israel and its supporters (Britain and the USA) to bend over backwards to providing the very best for the Palestinian people.

Instead, what is happening is that Israel kills and destroys anything Palestinian and both Britain and the USA supply Israel with what it needs to remain a totalitarian and oppressive overlord.

[Cormac]

Coito - can I ask something?

You are very very passionate in your defence of Israel.

Please don't take offence at this question - do you have an axe to grind in that conflict? Do you have family or friends in Israel?

(I mean, I'm quite exercised about the issue too, although these days I try not to respond too much - too many internet discussions that go round and round and round, and I've got no personal stake in the issue other than our shared humanity. So clearly I accept that one doesn't have an axe to grind).

[Jason]

Too lazy, many many documentaries and sources. Go do your own homework.

LOL -- laughable answer in the extreme. Defend your own allegations. But, it is the standard answer from those espousing your view. Mainly, I suspect, it's because you are repeating allegations, but ones that you can't actually substantiate with any specificity.

Maybe, but I'm just too lazy. I have the shit around here somewhere I think. Can't be arsed to look. I'm used to warmongering neo-cons denying the reality and tired of it. Maybe if you antagonize me enough I'll look for it.

[SteveB]

I'm antagonizing you, Pord!

[Cormac]

Also Coito, can you explain what Israel is doing with this kind of activity, if it desires peace:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20585706

[Drewish]

I have friends of various political beliefs, and to say that there is bad behavior, religiously and racially based intolerance, and blatant lying by both sides (repeatedly) is sadly true. There is no clear end in site, and it's become a proxy battle for so many differing conflicts. It will either end when the Palestinians outnumber the Jews within Israel (which probably won't end well for them), or the israelis have conquered and subjugated all the Palestinians. Both of these things are happening slowly. The Palestinians have voted in Hamas for fear of the israeli encroachment, and Israel is building settlements and encouraging their most... rigid groups to bread to increase Jewish numbers. Sometimes I wonder if a full on war isn't going to be the way to finally show people how pointless this approach is. You can hardly blame the leadership, they're doing exactly what their people want...

[Coito ergo sum]

Remember that there never was a country called Palestine or a Palestinian State, at least not in the last 2500 years,

Which means exactly zero.

Palestine was a part of the Ottoman Empire till World War I, when that empire was dismantled. From WWI to WWII, Palestine was administered by the British. During that time, a number of Jews immigrated into Palestine. Then in WWII, the "Jewish Problem" emerged as an issue, and the utter bastards in government in Britain and the USA decided to create a Jewish homeland.

One, so what if they immigrated? Opposing Jewish immigration to the British Mandate for Palestine would be like opposing Mexican immigration to the US. How dare they, right?

And, there were Jews there even under the Ottoman Empire. They were, of course, subdued and oppressed minority populations, subject to Dhimmi taxes and legal disabilities "because they were Jewish," of course. That's common under Muslim governments.

Why do you say the British and Americans -- well -- the UN, really - were bastards for creating a "Jewish" State in Israel, but they weren't "bastards" for creating a "Muslim" State in, say, Jordan or Syria?

The 1947 borders of Israel as created by the UN gerrymandered around to cover primarily Jewish populations. So what? Is the land inherently "Muslim?"

They did this by stealing the land off the Palestinians who had been living there for 1500 years under various governments. This deed was purest evil. The dispossessed Palestinians were forced to go to refugee camps in Jordan and other places.

This is, well, bullshit. Look at the 1947 bifurcation plan. There were Jewish populations there. And, that's what they carved out for Israel. Those populations accepted that demarcation and accepted statehood. The Arabs did not. Jordan claimed and controlled the West Bank as part of its country since Jordan was created some years earlier than Israel. Immediately after the formation of Israel, the Arab countries all ganged up on Israel, because they think (a) Jews aren't allowed there and should be expelled or murdered, and (b) the land is inherently Muslim. So, Israel kicked their ass and won a few bits of land in that conflict.

The stolen land has now been given to Israel and to individual Israelis.

Do you mean the land that was taken when Israel beat the Jordanian, syrian and Egyptian forces in the first war after the formation of Israel? What land are you talking about?

Now, I know damn well that Israel is there to stay. We cannot wave a magic wand and reverse history. I also know that Hamas is acting in a stupid, irresponsible, and destructive way in firing those rockets. However, bearing in mind what was done to the Palestinian people, the correct way to deal with this is for Israel and its supporters (Britain and the USA) to bend over backwards to providing the very best for the Palestinian people.

I'd be happy to support such a plan, if the Palestinian people will specify what they want, and when they get it, shut the fuck up and stop firing rockets, etc., at Israeli schools. But, see, what they apparently want is "no more Israel." That is the one thing they can't have. It's too late.

What they should have done was the smart thing, which is what the Jews did in 1947. Take what they could get. Had the Arabs accepted Partition in 1947, the state boundaries would have been set. It would have been what it would have been, and Israel would have been boxed in to its little gerrymandered "state." Instead, they had to take the position that it was some sort of catastrophe that anything other than a Muslim government rule that little gerrymandered district.

Instead, what is happening is that Israel kills and destroys anything Palestinian and both Britain and the USA supply Israel with what it needs to remain a totalitarian and oppressive overlord.

This is claptrap. Israel is not totalitarian. Plenty of Arab Muslims live and work and participate in government in Israel itself. Like 20% of the population is Arab Muslim and they do fine. Nobody is 'stealing their homes."

Can you, as I asked PordFrefect, provide your sources for the stolen land thing so we can go through it. Everyone advancing your position is long on allegations, and short on providing any sort of backup or specificity.

[Coito ergo sum]

Coito - can I ask something?

You are very very passionate in your defence of Israel.

Please don't take offence at this question - do you have an axe to grind in that conflict? Do you have family or friends in Israel?

No offense taken. I'll answer directly: Nope. I'm a WASP, ethnically speaking, and as white and racially Aryan as they come (not that I believe in any sort of superiority by virtue of the use of the term Aryan -- I think of race as bollocks - a fiction) -- Hitler jerked off to the thought of my "racial" make-up , and I can't trace a single ancestor to either side of that dispute, let alone a relative. I can't find a non-Scandinavian ancestor or blood relative of mine going back well into the 19th century, and the only ones there is a German or two, none of whom have ever been reputed to be Jewish or Muslim.

I don't know where you see "passion" in my argument. I haven't been "passionate." I think my recitation of events is largely dispassionate, and to the facts (as I see them), whereas, PordFrefect and Blind Groper write in near hyperbole and sound actually angry about it.

(I mean, I'm quite exercised about the issue too, although these days I try not to respond too much - too many internet discussions that go round and round and round, and I've got no personal stake in the issue other than our shared humanity. So clearly I accept that one doesn't have an axe to grind).

This is where I fit in too. The reason I like to talk about it is because I am happy to be convinced either way on it, but Blind Groper and PordFrefect's take is resoundingly unconvincing. What I find to be very common is PordFrefect's response to my request for sources that back up the allegations he makes -- he says "go do your own research!" -- That's a red flag for me. What it means is "I hold this position very stongly and with great certainty, even though I really don't have any good sources to back them up."

[Coito ergo sum]

Also Coito, can you explain what Israel is doing with this kind of activity, if it desires peace:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-20585706

Well, let's take a look at where this land is and what it is.

For example, more than half of the 3,000 new homes are in Ramat Shlomo. Ramat Shlomo ("Solomon's Heights") is a large Jewish housing development in northern East Jerusalem. Presently, the population, mostly ultra-Orthodox, is 18,000-20,000 people. So we're talking about another 1600 homes there. The population of Israel and the West Bank combined is like 10,000,000. Doesn't seem to big of a deal, statistically. Ramat Shlomo was built on land formerly occupied by Jordan from 1948 through 1967 and captured by Israel in the 1967 Six-Day War and occupied since then.

See that -- remember my recitation of the basic history of the conflict and the interplay with Jordan. Jordan occupied it from 1948 to 1967. What happened in 1967? Israel acted in self-defense against Jordan and other Arab countries, and it captured the land. That isn't "stealing." That's winning a defensive war. It would be like Mexico attacking the US and then complaining that after the war the US retained Tijuana.

So, my question is -- and I am willing to be persuaded....why can't Jews build homes in Ramat Shlomo?

Nobody, for example, would support the assertion that Muslims shouldn't move to Israel and build homes there. And, they do. Look at the Muslim population of Israel -- it's growing, not falling.

Most of the reason these settlements are "deplored" is not because Israel has done anything wrong, but mainly because they piss off the Palestinians and seem to make it harder to work out a long term peace. In that respect, I agree with you. However, this isn't anything remotely rising to the level of "genocide" or such allegations. On a technical, legal level, I haven't been convinced that the settlements ought to be considered "illegal." I know that there are some UN resolutions on the topic that allude to that, but the rationale behind them, to me, is suspect. The UN is "a" source of international law, but it isn't an "International Congress" which makes law. International law is far more mushy and opaque than that.

[Blind groper]

To coito

The problem with the Jewish immigration into Palestine between WWI and WWII was that it was against the wishes of the people who had lived on that land for 1500 years - the Palestinians. It was forced upon them by the British, who were administering the country, and they hated it.

After WWII, even more Jews immigrated, and the Arab people started to fight back, as you would, if large numbers of foreigners came into your country (to the extent of becoming half the population) against the will of the people. This led to an exchange of atrocities and civil war. The result was the expulsion of over 700,000 Palestinians, including the confiscation of their homes and their lands, with no compensation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Palestinian_exodus

The United Nations had a plan to partition the country, but that plan was also against the wishes of the Palestinians. And why the hell should they agree? It was their country, damn it. For a bunch of foreigners to come in and take half their country in order to give it to their friends is hardly acceptable.

[Coito ergo sum]

To coito

The problem with the Jewish immigration into Palestine between WWI and WWII was that it was against the wishes of the people who had lived on that land for 1500 years - the Palestinians.

Please substantiate that. Who expressed those wishes? And, if it was just anti-Jewish sentiment among the population, I ask you, "so fucking what?" It's against the wishes of a great many Americans that Mexicans immigrate to the US. Does that mean Mexicans can't immigrate to the US?

And, they were not Palestinians in WW1 -- they were uniformly called "Arabs." There was no Palestine. There were no Palestinians. Moreover, if Palestinian is a nationality, then there ought to be no reason Jews can't actually be Palestinians. Why not? They can be Americans. They can be French. They can be Syrian. Why not "Palestinian?" Are Palestinians inherently Muslim?

Further, there were, prior to WW1, Jews living in the lands there too. So, certainly their voice counts too.

Now, if you're going let "The Grand Mufti" and other guys like him be the ones to speak for "the people who lived there for 1500 years", then of course the message we get is that Jews need not apply. But, excuse me if I don't choose to side with the racist views of those who sided with the Nazis in WW2 - recall -- the Arabs were on the side of the Nazis in WW2, and against the Allies. Is there any wonder why?

It was forced upon them by the British, who were administering the country, and they hated it.

Who is "they?" Who are you saying speaks for all the people, Muslims, Jews, Christians, Druze, Zoroastrians and others who were all living in the "Holy Land" area at the time the Ottoman Empire fell?

The British (and French in the French Mandate) ALSO created and carved out Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Iraq and Egypt. The only contry in that crowd that had any roughly specific historical boundaries was Egypt. Jordan, Syria, Iraq and Egypt were all carved out and made to be "Muslim" countries. And, this tiny little Rhode Island sized bit of desert, with no oil, was made into a Jewish country, and Lebanon was made essentially Christian (majority Christian).

Now, your argument is that all the Muslim countries are legitimate. Why?

Was Lebanon legitimately "Christian?" Or, is justice now done, given that the Muslims have taken back Lebanon?

After WWII, even more Jews immigrated, and the Arab people started to fight back, as you would, if large numbers of foreigners came into your country (to the extent of becoming half the population) against the will of the people.

Under no circumstances is this racist logic given any credence in any other context. There are "large numbers of foreigners" coming into the US every year, and it's often considered "racist" for Americans to oppose even the illegal immigrants.

You're actually suggesting here that it is reasonable for Muslims to oppose immigration based on race and religion? Seriously? So, will you make the same argument in favor of American racists who oppose the entry of Mexicans and "ragheads" into the US? If not, what's the difference?

The United Nations had a plan to partition the country, but that plan was also against the wishes of the Palestinians.

Please cite your source here -- whose wishes? Whose voice in 1947 are we listening to? The Grand fucking Mufti al Hasayni? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haj_Amin_al-Husseini - Nazi sympathizing racists are nobody to be listened to. Of course he and his ilk didn't want Jews there. But, so what? The KKK doesn't want blacks and Jews in the US either.d

And why the hell should they agree? It was their country, damn it. For a bunch of foreigners to come in and take half their country in order to give it to their friends is hardly acceptable.

It's also not what happened.

Yes! Why should Mexicans be allowed into Southern California en masse! They're turning it into North Mexico, for the love of noGod! It's our country -- America for Americans! Mexicans and Muslims need not apply! I'm a bit suspicious of the Catholics, too....

[Blind groper]

Coito

You should re-read that last post of yours. It is extremely racist.

Immigration is fine if it is condoned by the people. Yes, Americans resent much Mexican immigration, and they have a right to do so when it is illegal. Immigrants who go through an official process, and are accepted as new residents - that is something else.

The situation in Palestine is that the people did not have a representative government, and they were given no choice. Their families had been living in those lands for 1500 years, and I do not give a damn whether you call them Arabs, Ottomans, or Palestinians. It was their country, and where their roots were. Just as strong as any other country and any other people.

The sheer volume of Jewish immigrants was another matter too. it would be like 300 million Mexicans marching into the USA. How would you feel about that?

And then, on top of all that, the Palestinians were told that half their country would be stolen off them and given to the new Jewish immigrants who had marched in against the will of the people of Palestine. Of course they resisted. If someone tried that here in New Zealand, I would be making bombs and shooting people too, and I am sure you would be doing the same if it happened to you.

[Coito ergo sum]

Coito

You should re-read that last post of yours. It is extremely racist.

It isn't. It is a facetious way of illustrating the racism in the suggestion that "Jews" ought not be allowed to immigrate to "Muslim" countries.

Immigration is fine if it is condoned by the people.

Err... which people? Certainly those in Jewish areas didn't mind Jews immigrating. Probably some Muslims didn't mind either, as I'm sure there are some non-racist Muslims, aren't there? Generally, immigration policy is set by the government, and under principles of basic human rights, discrimination based on religion or race is a bit of a no no -- See UN Declaration on Human Rights, etc.

Yes, Americans resent much Mexican immigration, and they have a right to do so when it is illegal.

O.k., good. Key words "when it is illegal." Laws applicable at the time of the British Mandate were made by whom? The Grand Mufty al Hasayani?

Immigrants who go through an official process, and are accepted as new residents - that is something else.

So, in the US, it doesn't matter if the sentiment of the people is that Mexicans need not apply, it has to do with applicable immigration law, yes? Good. So, ought not the same apply there?

The situation in Palestine is that the people did not have a representative government, and they were given no choice. Their families had been living in those lands for 1500 years,

They, meaning various religions -- Muslims, Christians, Jews, Druze, Zoroastrian....atheists, agnostics....

And, choice? How much choice did anyone have under the "Ottoman Empire?" Choice. That's a red herring here, because for that 1500 years, there was no representative government, and the peoples living in that region changed many times.

Recall that in the early 400s, the Holy Land was part of the Eastern Roman Empire. There was no Islam, and no Muslims whatsoever. The religions there were Jewish, Christian and various pagan polytheistic religions, including the Roman State gods, with the official religion after about 390AD being "Christian." That was the official religion of the Roman Empire.

For the next 1000 years, until the fall of Constantinople in 1435 or thereabouts, the Eastern Roman Empire, later called the Byzantine Empire, ruled as a Christian Empire. There were no Muslims in the so called Holy Land until around 700 or thereabouts. Mohamet lived in the mid 7th century as I recall, and the Muslims didn't start spreading until the late 600s, I believe.

So -- for hundreds of years, the Byzantine Empire had a tug of war over the Holy Land with the Musselmen (Moslems/Muslims) and the Muslims eventually conquered it and "stole" all the land, and they kept pushing into Europe - Sicily, Spain, southern France, the Balkans --- with the teetering Byzantines fighting for survival.

Charles the Hammer Martel had to defeat the marauding Muslims in 735 at the Battle of Tours and save Europe from being engulfed by the invaders. Later, the Reconquista in Spain drove out the Muslims from the Iberian Peninsula, and at the same time the Crusades tried to wrest BACK the so called Holy Land from the Muslims. Etc etc.

and I do not give a damn whether you call them Arabs, Ottomans, or Palestinians. It was their country, and where their roots were. Just as strong as any other country and any other people.

The Jews that lived there had roots there too.

The land isn't Muslim, and Jews moving to the area, especially since most of them moved to cities that were built on empty land, is not inherently a problem or an affront.

The sheer volume of Jewish immigrants was another matter too. it would be like 300 million Mexicans marching into the USA. How would you feel about that?

Look, Jewish immigration prior to 1918 was controlled by the Ottoman government. From 1918 to 1949, it was controlled by the British Mandate. During that time, Jordan was created, Syria was created Lebanon was created, Iraq was created, etc. Nobody complained that the Jordanians "stole" the land. However, as soon as the Jewish portions of the region were split off into a Jewish state, rather than a Muslim state, then it became a problem. Remember -- the part that was made into Israel was the part that was populated mostly by Jews. The overwhelmingly vast majority of Jewish immigration to the region has been to Israel, post partition.

And then, on top of all that, the Palestinians were told that half their country would be stolen off them and given to the new Jewish immigrants who had marched in against the will of the people of Palestine.

They were not told that. The part of the land that was made into Israel was populated mostly by Jews.



The Palestinians/Arabs as a people do not have rights to cities and neighborhoods populated mostly by Jews, did they? What they were told was that the pieces in which there were mostly Jews, they would become Israel. The other pieces - West Bank, Gaza, mostly, would be Arab. The Jews said "yes." The Arabs said 'no." Why? Because the Arabs wanted the Jewish bits too.

Of course they resisted. If someone tried that here in New Zealand, I would be making bombs and shooting people too, and I am sure you would be doing the same if it happened to you.

What the fuck are you talking about? Under your logic, the indigenous people of New Zealand ought to be firing Katayusha rockets at YOUR house!

[Blind groper]

Coito

I am assuming you are American.

I seem to recall a time, about 1776 IIRC, when the people of the USA kicked out a British government. At the time, there was no USA as we know it today. The peoples of Palestine were in a similar position, but did not have the strength to kick out their British overlords.

The British mandate led to a lot of decisions being made that were against the wishes of the people, and against their interests. In America, that same situation led to revolution and independence. In Palestine, due to their relative weakness, it led to tyranny and oppression.

The decisions of the British mandate were not "moral" in the sense we appreciate today, since it was colonialism abused. The vast majority of those living in Palestine before WWII were Muslim Arabs, and their forebears had lived there for 1500 years. The real reason why the British (and the USA) pushed through the immigration of vast numbers of Jews and the expulsion of so many of the native peoples of Palestine was religious. They thought the Jews were the chosen people of God and that Palestine was the Holy Land, ordained by God for the Jews. They also believed in the superstition that those who aided the chosen people would also be blessed by God.

Are you religious, Coito? Do you also believe that superstition? Because, frankly, there was no rational reason for bringing in all those Jews. There was no moral reason for bringing in all those Jews. There was only a superstitious and religious reason.

This continues today. There is no rational or moral reason for the USA to support Israel in their continued oppression of the Palestinians. There is only a religious reason. Of course, 90% of Americans are religious, and believe in the Abrahamic deity. That is, at root, the reason Americans do something so wrong as to support ongoing oppression of the unfortunate Palestinian peoples.