Defining ourselves as "pro" or "anti"

[Dhara]

Would you define yourself as pro- or anti- Israel and/or pro- or anti- Palestine?

What distinguishes the different designations?


I, personally, consider myself both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian.

I'd like to be pro-Israel and pro-Palestine. A two state solution would be what I'd like to see as an outcome. AND this is such a complicated situation. I don't fully understand HOW this can be resolved.

 

[Shusha]

Not if you read the stuff on these boards and how quickly folks get classified as "jew hater" and anti-semite.

Since I've been here I've mostly been hanging out in IP so I have limited experience with the whole board. But I'm surprised at how often folks deserve these classifications.

That said, name-calling and labeling is ultimately unproductive, whether its jew hater or islamonazi or zionut. I would much rather have a higher level of conversation than that kind of schoolyard stuff.

I think once you start labeling - then people get "stuck" and it no longer matters what they say, or, even if later they change their minds through debate because they are forever labeled.

I see a lot of generic Jew-bashing, but it's from a fairly small number of dedicated people, I see a lot of anger at Israel, but not directed at Jews in general. The IP conflict does tend to give anti-semitism a vehicle to "legitimize" their hate and conspiracy theories, hiding it in arguments against Israel. I also see a lot of anti-Islamism, and it's much more widely supported, and there again - if you argue against broad brushing, or conspiracy-theory logic, you get labeled.

I think you are right, the IP conflict legitimizes and disguises antisemitism as anti-Israelism, which is more socially accepted and permissible (actually very socially acceptable, even preferable). But, imo, it is sourced in the same fundamental ideology. I hate to use the word, well, "hate". I think the word is too strong and inaccurate. But its a characteristic mistrust in seeing the Jewish people as "other" which has plagued us for thousands of years. Its assigning, sometimes in a subtle way, rules which apply differently to the Jewish people than to other peoples. On IP, it tends not to come out as blatant antisemitism (with some astonishing exceptions).

Examples:

• the Jewish people are not a culture.
• the Jewish people should all move to Wisconsin or Uganda.
• the Jewish people were not displaced and have no right of return.
• all Israelis are "fair game" and military targets, even babies (sometimes softened to: all Israelis in the OPT)

Those are just a few examples off the top of my head. Do you see how dismissive and dehumanizing those statements are? Do you see how those are rules which are applied differently to other people?

I haven't seen as much anti-Islamism, though I think it was you who told me it was more prevalent in places other than IP. I certainly know it can be a problem. I think it is trickier to demonstrate how it is a fundamental ideology about the group and what they are, though, as it is often attached to a specific behaviour or expressions of their own ideology.

Examples:

• Arabs/Muslims/Palestinians are animals (attached to a behaviour, but conflated to the rest of the group).
• Arabs/Muslims/Palestinians are terrorists (attached to a behaviour, but conflated to the rest of the group).
• Palestinians are not a people.

 

[Shusha]

The arab muslims were nomadic farm workers that followed the harvests and lived in tent cities, they did not live on the land permanently. Once this is understood the rest falls into place very easily

That is not true. There were plenty of permanent settlements.

 

[Shusha]

I am Pro-England.

I am Pro-France.

I believe each have the right to exist, and the right to run their nation as they see fit.

"Palestine," like "Mid-West" or "Arctic" references a region, not a country. Arab Palestine is Jordan.

I am Pro-Jordan.

This brings up an interesting point. Israel is the only county in the world which, in fact, exists but still has a large number of people arguing that it should not.

 

[Coyote]

,,,

Not if you read the stuff on these boards and how quickly folks get classified as "jew hater" and anti-semite.

Since I've been here I've mostly been hanging out in IP so I have limited experience with the whole board. But I'm surprised at how often folks deserve these classifications.

That said, name-calling and labeling is ultimately unproductive, whether its jew hater or islamonazi or zionut. I would much rather have a higher level of conversation than that kind of schoolyard stuff.

I think once you start labeling - then people get "stuck" and it no longer matters what they say, or, even if later they change their minds through debate because they are forever labeled.

I see a lot of generic Jew-bashing, but it's from a fairly small number of dedicated people, I see a lot of anger at Israel, but not directed at Jews in general. The IP conflict does tend to give anti-semitism a vehicle to "legitimize" their hate and conspiracy theories, hiding it in arguments against Israel. I also see a lot of anti-Islamism, and it's much more widely supported, and there again - if you argue against broad brushing, or conspiracy-theory logic, you get labeled.

I think you are right, the IP conflict legitimizes and disguises antisemitism as anti-Israelism, which is more socially accepted and permissible (actually very socially acceptable, even preferable). But, imo, it is sourced in the same fundamental ideology. I hate to use the word, well, "hate". I think the word is too strong and inaccurate. But its a characteristic mistrust in seeing the Jewish people as "other" which has plagued us for thousands of years. Its assigning, sometimes in a subtle way, rules which apply differently to the Jewish people than to other peoples. On IP, it tends not to come out as blatant antisemitism (with some astonishing exceptions).

Examples:

• the Jewish people are not a culture.
• the Jewish people should all move to Wisconsin or Uganda.
• the Jewish people were not displaced and have no right of return.
• all Israelis are "fair game" and military targets, even babies (sometimes softened to: all Israelis in the OPT)

Those are just a few examples off the top of my head. Do you see how dismissive and dehumanizing those statements are? Do you see how those are rules which are applied differently to other people?

I haven't seen as much anti-Islamism, though I think it was you who told me it was more prevalent in places other than IP. I certainly know it can be a problem. I think it is trickier to demonstrate how it is a fundamental ideology about the group and what they are, though, as it is often attached to a specific behaviour or expressions of their own ideology.

Examples:

• Arabs/Muslims/Palestinians are animals (attached to a behaviour, but conflated to the rest of the group).
• Arabs/Muslims/Palestinians are terrorists (attached to a behaviour, but conflated to the rest of the group).
• Palestinians are not a people.

I see what you are saying, to some extent. For example - I think one can argue, rationally, that Jews are not a "culture" (they are a religion) without being anti-semitic. "Right of Return" can also be argued, the reason being it is based on events thousands of years ago that may or may not be accurately recorded and no other people makes the same claim to an ancient landscape. Those can be legitimate arguments without being dehumanizing.

What I see as anti-Islamism are statements made that broad brush an entire religion that spans multiple cultures. For example, by taking religious text completely out of context. Using terms like taqqiya to claim that all Muslims lie. Claiming they are all potential terrorists or abbetters. Claiming that they don't speak out (despite multiple examples of them doing so). Politicians supporting "anti-sharia" legislation (which ignores the way religious law is used in the US in very specific ways); supporting curtailing their rights. Conflating the Palestinians with Hitler. Saying the Palestinians should all be expelled to Jordan.

What I see as anti-semitism is most often expressed as a readiness to buy into conspiracy theories - Jews control the world, the banks, the media, the government...denying the holocaust, or blaming the Jews for what happened in the holocaust or other expulsions. When it comes to Israel - it gets much more complicated to pick out the anti-semitism from the anti-Israelism but I can see it in those that deny Jews are indiginous, or have a right to be there, as if there were no Jews before the 19th century.

 

[Boston1]

Hasbara 101: try to pass yourself off as "neutral"

Pro-Palestinian shitholism: trying to classify anyone not on the "Death to Zionists" camp as "Hasbara troll".

No different than Pro-Israeli shitholism: trying to classify anyone not on the "Death to Palestinian" camp as "anti-semitic".

Nope. Most Israelis and Zionists are not in anyway in favor of "Death to Palestinians". At least not the innocent ones. That thinking is reserved to our enemies.

And "challenger" was the first one to provoke that response with the "Hasbara troll" bullshit. Take it out on him.

I couldn't agree more.

I have repeatedly stated that I'd like to see the rights of the individual be respected exactly as specified within the Geneva Conventions.

Which is why I'd define myself as pro Israeli and pro individual.

I'd question the existence of a race or a people called palestinian other than as a roman reference to the Judaic people of the past.

Ergo I cannot in good conscience say I'm pro pali, when pali's no longer exist. They are now either Jordanians, Arab Muslims or Israeli's.

Who are you to say if Palestinians exist or not, if a man identifies as a women, or a person classified at birth as Female chooses to be identified as a male, who are you to state they don´t exist?

Um, someone who's grip on history is significantly better than yours.

Lets review.

The term palestinian is fairly old dating back to Hadrian. The Arab Muslims you'd like to apply the term to are not. Dating to a period over a thousand years later.

So we know beyond any doubt that the term did NOT APPLY to Arab Muslims for at least 1000 years.

So, when did it begin to apply to Arab Muslims ?

I see no reference to any people but the Judaic people within any literature prior to about the mid 20th century.

So

Do explain to us exactly when the term changed from referring to the Judaic people to referring to the Arab people ?

 

[Boston1]

Hasbara 101: try to pass yourself off as "neutral"

Ha. Well, I am decidedly not neutral. I am very much pro-Israel. But I do think that there is a reasonable solution which will serve the Palestinians as well as the Israelis.

Ya, I'm similar except pro-Palestinian and I firmly believe any solution must include the needs and recognition of both Israel and the Palestine as states and more importantly, individual people.

Do you believe that the arab muslims should have taken up residence in the land granted to them by the LoN and not try to take the Jewish portion by violent means. Set the border of Palestine and Israel as those delineated in the mandate of Palestine.

I believe that the people should take up residence where they've had their residence, not being forceably expelled and having their lands confiscated.

So when did they acquire these lands as I cant find any mention in any international treaties of the Ottomans or LoN handing sovereignty to the arab muslims. The laws back in 1923, 1948 and 1967 were very simple. If you did not have sovereignty of the land then it was not yours, and you could be evicted at any time. The arab muslims were nomadic farm workers that followed the harvests and lived in tent cities, they did not live on the land permanently. Once this is understood the rest falls into place very easily

I couldn't agree more. The Arabs rejected every offer of additional territory beyond what they'd already received in Jordan. Ergo there was no sovereign west of the Jordan other than Israel in the area. Exactly as specified in the Mandate.

 

[Shusha]

I see what you are saying, to some extent. For example - I think one can argue, rationally, that Jews are not a "culture" (they are a religion) without being anti-semitic.

I disagree. I have yet to see a rational objective definition of "culture" which could be universally applied but which would not also apply to the Jewish people. Thus people are rationalizing away Jewish rights to be treated the same as everyone else. Your own definition of "culture" is so elastic as to create a different culture based on a dialect difference of a single vocalization of a single consonant, and the slight differing of embroidery patterns on women's dresses. This, you say, qualifies as a unique culture, while all of the rich culture of the Jewish people is "just religion". Seriously? What would the objective measure be between a "religion" and a "culture"? What makes a language like Hebrew nothing but part of a religion, while a dialect difference denotes an entirely distinct culture?

The idea that the Jewish people have no culture is just game of rationalizing antisemitism. It begins with the idea that the Jewish people need to be considered differently, and then works out a "solution" to the problem. Rather than beginning with a rational, objective definition and then seeing if that applies to the Jewish people or not. Its nothing more than a convenient excuse to exclude Jewish people from rights other peoples hold.

"Right of Return" can also be argued, the reason being it is based on events thousands of years ago that may or may not be accurately recorded and no other people makes the same claim to an ancient landscape. Those can be legitimate arguments without being dehumanizing.

Do you not see how that denies the history of the Jewish people? Do you hold other groups of people to that same standard? Are the First Nations peoples histories "accurately recorded" enough -- the Cree, the Salish, the Lakota, the Iroquois, the Cherokee? Is the Kurdish people's history "accurately recorded" enough? The Maori? The Catalans? The Aztecs and the Mayans? Is an "accurate recording" of history the measure by which we determine that people have or do not have existence as a culture; the right to be included in the group; to self-determination and the right to return to a homeland?

Or is it the passage of time which disqualifies a group from the right of return? How much time? Ten years? A hundred? Two hundred? A thousand? Pick a number and then apply it consistently.

Or is it the ancientness of the claim to the landscape which is the measure? Are Egyptians disqualified from claiming "peoplehood"; or self-determination because they've been around so long? Are people prevented from returning to Egypt because Egypt is so ancient?

Or is residence the measure? If you live there -- its yours. If you've been successfully displaced -- its not.

All of these arguments may or may not be valid. It depends on if you can claim them consistently. If you can not apply it consistently, check your antisemitism levels.

What I see as anti-semitism is most often expressed as a readiness to buy into conspiracy theories - Jews control the world, the banks, the media, the government...denying the holocaust, or blaming the Jews for what happened in the holocaust or other expulsions. When it comes to Israel - it gets much more complicated to pick out the anti-semitism from the anti-Israelism but I can see it in those that deny Jews are indiginous, or have a right to be there, as if there were no Jews before the 19th century.

Yes, I agree that you do not see the more subtle forms of antisemitism as they are disguised as anti-Israelism.

What I see as anti-Islamism are statements made that broad brush an entire religion that spans multiple cultures. For example, by taking religious text completely out of context. Using terms like taqqiya to claim that all Muslims lie. Claiming they are all potential terrorists or abbetters. Claiming that they don't speak out (despite multiple examples of them doing so). Politicians supporting "anti-sharia" legislation (which ignores the way religious law is used in the US in very specific ways); supporting curtailing their rights. Conflating the Palestinians with Hitler. Saying the Palestinians should all be expelled to Jordan.

Yeah, I'm with you on all that. Except no one is saying ALL Palestinians should be expelled to Jordan. Not that I can see.

 

[aris2chat]

Would you define yourself as pro- or anti- Israel and/or pro- or anti- Palestine?

What distinguishes the different designations?


I, personally, consider myself both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian.

Hasbara 101: try to pass yourself off as "neutral"

Ha. Well, I am decidedly not neutral. I am very much pro-Israel. But I do think that there is a reasonable solution which will serve the Palestinians as well as the Israelis.

Ya, I'm similar except pro-Palestinian and I firmly believe any solution must include the needs and recognition of both Israel and the Palestine as states and more importantly, individual people.

Do you believe that the arab muslims should have taken up residence in the land granted to them by the LoN and not try to take the Jewish portion by violent means. Set the border of Palestine and Israel as those delineated in the mandate of Palestine.

I believe that the people should take up residence where they've had their residence, not being forceably expelled and having their lands confiscated.

and if they are on land their grandparents sold and the family no long owns, on land they were renting before the own sold it, or squatting on land they had any claim to but perhaps a grand parent might have worked on the property one year. Land that was never registers and never paid taxes on..............

Just because they lived on the property under jordan does not mean they have legal title to the land

Jest because the land happens to be in the WB does not mean it was not land that belonged to jews.

Land rights are more complicated that who sleeps where last night.

It is for the time being land the PA does not control when they decided Oslo was dead and would no longer work with israel.

2% of land that would have been part of any land trade in a final deal.

If they don't go back to talks, it will remain land in Israeli hands, at least till old agreements are complied with

 

[Coyote]

I see what you are saying, to some extent. For example - I think one can argue, rationally, that Jews are not a "culture" (they are a religion) without being anti-semitic.

I disagree. I have yet to see a rational objective definition of "culture" which could be universally applied but which would not also apply to the Jewish people. Thus people are rationalizing away Jewish rights to be treated the same as everyone else. Your own definition of "culture" is so elastic as to create a different culture based on a dialect difference of a single vocalization of a single consonant, and the slight differing of embroidery patterns on women's dresses. This, you say, qualifies as a unique culture, while all of the rich culture of the Jewish people is "just religion". Seriously? What would the objective measure be between a "religion" and a "culture"? What makes a language like Hebrew nothing but part of a religion, while a dialect difference denotes an entirely distinct culture?

When I pointed out what made Palestinians distinct - it was an answer to a question "what makes them a distinct people". Is religion a culture? Latin is the religious language of Christianity - does that make all Christians "a culture"? Arabic is the language of Islam - does that mean all Islam has the same culture - Albania, Chechnya, Saudi Arabia? I'm also not arguing that "Jewish" is not a "culture" (your argument convinced me that there are unifying cultural factors) nor am I minimizing it as you seek to do with the Palestinians. What I AM saying is that it is a reasonable point of discussion and that opinions arguing one way or another are not necessarily anti-semitic because the argument is reasonable.

The idea that the Jewish people have no culture is just game of rationalizing antisemitism. It begins with the idea that the Jewish people need to be considered differently, and then works out a "solution" to the problem. Rather than beginning with a rational, objective definition and then seeing if that applies to the Jewish people or not. Its nothing more than a convenient excuse to exclude Jewish people from rights other peoples hold.

I'm not arguing they have "no culture" - what I'm saying is it is perfectly reasonable to argue whether one culture unifies them all - or whether it's a religion unifying them...or both. It's a RATIONAL OBJECTIVE argument that doesn't imply antisemitism merely differing interpretations what what is a "culture". It also doesn't automatically exclude anyone from rights.

"Right of Return" can also be argued, the reason being it is based on events thousands of years ago that may or may not be accurately recorded and no other people makes the same claim to an ancient landscape. Those can be legitimate arguments without being dehumanizing.

Do you not see how that denies the history of the Jewish people? Do you hold other groups of people to that same standard? Are the First Nations peoples histories "accurately recorded" enough -- the Cree, the Salish, the Lakota, the Iroquois, the Cherokee? Is the Kurdish people's history "accurately recorded" enough? The Maori? The Catalans? The Aztecs and the Mayans? Is an "accurate recording" of history the measure by which we determine that people have or do not have existence as a culture; the right to be included in the group; to self-determination and the right to return to a homeland?

No. I really don't see that it denies them their history. Their history is THEIRS. And yes - FIRST NATIONS people's histories are not necessarily accurately recorded either. Nor is the New Testement history of Christianity. They are stories passed down through the generations. There is archaelogical evidence to support parts, partial evidence for others, and nothing for some and new understanding uncovered all the time. History then was not recorded with the same academic rigor as it is now. Does recognizing that mean "denying it"? The Hopi are a fascinating people, and they have a creation myth that reflects that of other people's destruction/recreation: Creation Stories with four creations, destruction by flood, fire, etc....so...is this literally true? This history? Is Noah's flood, literally true? Well, maybe..kind of...if you realize the biblical world was a tiny place, and a flood would not have to be so massive to destroy it. That is not "denying" them their history, it's putting it into a realistic perspective. I don't understand your outrage.

Or is it the passage of time which disqualifies a group from the right of return? How much time? Ten years? A hundred? Two hundred? A thousand? Pick a number and then apply it consistently.

Then, surely the Palestinians have the right of return don't they?

But to answer your question, if there was an unlimited right of "return" - where would you draw the line. My ancestors came from Norway and Wales, among other places. Does that give me and my descendents an open ended right to return there? To claim ancestral lands? Genetic migration patterns are fascinating - I have never had mine plotted but other folks have...over the milliniums - at which point can they claim ancestral right of return...somewhere in Africa? What makes it a right? Before the Jews were there, there were other people....what about them? Based on your argument - much of America MUST cede it's territorial claims to the First Nations. So...where does this end?

Or is it the ancientness of the claim to the landscape which is the measure? Are Egyptians disqualified from claiming "peoplehood"; or self-determination because they've been around so long? Are people prevented from returning to Egypt because Egypt is so ancient?

People are prevented from "returning" to Egypt by Egypt's laws and immigration rules. You are also conflating things here. Criticizing "Right of Return" does not mean denying "peoplehood" or "self determination" - you are arguing apples and oranges.

Or is residence the measure? If you live there -- its yours. If you've been successfully displaced -- its not.

I don't see how this bears on "Right of Return"....but the answer is very very complicated and it applies to the Palestinian cause as well.

All of these arguments may or may not be valid. It depends on if you can claim them consistently. If you can not apply it consistently, check your antisemitism levels.

Or check your anti-Palestinian levels.

What I see as anti-semitism is most often expressed as a readiness to buy into conspiracy theories - Jews control the world, the banks, the media, the government...denying the holocaust, or blaming the Jews for what happened in the holocaust or other expulsions. When it comes to Israel - it gets much more complicated to pick out the anti-semitism from the anti-Israelism but I can see it in those that deny Jews are indiginous, or have a right to be there, as if there were no Jews before the 19th century.

Yes, I agree that you do not see the more subtle forms of antisemitism as they are disguised as anti-Israelism.

Or maybe not all "anti-semitism" IS "anti-semitism".

What I see as anti-Islamism are statements made that broad brush an entire religion that spans multiple cultures. For example, by taking religious text completely out of context. Using terms like taqqiya to claim that all Muslims lie. Claiming they are all potential terrorists or abbetters. Claiming that they don't speak out (despite multiple examples of them doing so). Politicians supporting "anti-sharia" legislation (which ignores the way religious law is used in the US in very specific ways); supporting curtailing their rights. Conflating the Palestinians with Hitler. Saying the Palestinians should all be expelled to Jordan.

Yeah, I'm with you on all that. Except no one is saying ALL Palestinians should be expelled to Jordan. Not that I can see.

[/QUOTE]

Really? That was Boston's first claim, though he amended it. But look at Indeependent, Rhodescholar, Phoenall, ....I strongly suspect they have NO desire to see Arab filth infesting Israel and Israeli occupied territories. ForeverYoung436 has repeatedly stated that a mass expulsion is going to happen.

 

[Coyote]

Hasbara 101: try to pass yourself off as "neutral"

Ha. Well, I am decidedly not neutral. I am very much pro-Israel. But I do think that there is a reasonable solution which will serve the Palestinians as well as the Israelis.

Ya, I'm similar except pro-Palestinian and I firmly believe any solution must include the needs and recognition of both Israel and the Palestine as states and more importantly, individual people.

Do you believe that the arab muslims should have taken up residence in the land granted to them by the LoN and not try to take the Jewish portion by violent means. Set the border of Palestine and Israel as those delineated in the mandate of Palestine.

I believe that the people should take up residence where they've had their residence, not being forceably expelled and having their lands confiscated.

and if they are on land their grandparents sold and the family no long owns, on land they were renting before the own sold it, or squatting on land they had any claim to but perhaps a grand parent might have worked on the property one year. Land that was never registers and never paid taxes on..............

Just because they lived on the property under jordan does not mean they have legal title to the land

Jest because the land happens to be in the WB does not mean it was not land that belonged to jews.

Land rights are more complicated that who sleeps where last night.

It is for the time being land the PA does not control when they decided Oslo was dead and would no longer work with israel.

2% of land that would have been part of any land trade in a final deal.

If they don't go back to talks, it will remain land in Israeli hands, at least till old agreements are complied with

But then...you ignore something, and that is all the land that the state of Israel confiscated under "absentee landowner" laws.

 

[Coyote]

Hasbara 101: try to pass yourself off as "neutral"

Ha. Well, I am decidedly not neutral. I am very much pro-Israel. But I do think that there is a reasonable solution which will serve the Palestinians as well as the Israelis.

Ya, I'm similar except pro-Palestinian and I firmly believe any solution must include the needs and recognition of both Israel and the Palestine as states and more importantly, individual people.

Do you believe that the arab muslims should have taken up residence in the land granted to them by the LoN and not try to take the Jewish portion by violent means. Set the border of Palestine and Israel as those delineated in the mandate of Palestine.

I believe that the people should take up residence where they've had their residence, not being forceably expelled and having their lands confiscated.

and if they are on land their grandparents sold and the family no long owns, on land they were renting before the own sold it, or squatting on land they had any claim to but perhaps a grand parent might have worked on the property one year. Land that was never registers and never paid taxes on..............

Just because they lived on the property under jordan does not mean they have legal title to the land

Jest because the land happens to be in the WB does not mean it was not land that belonged to jews.

Land rights are more complicated that who sleeps where last night.

It is for the time being land the PA does not control when they decided Oslo was dead and would no longer work with israel.

2% of land that would have been part of any land trade in a final deal.

If they don't go back to talks, it will remain land in Israeli hands, at least till old agreements are complied with

Why do you always just assume the Palestinians are wrong and the Israeli's are right?

 

[aris2chat]

Ha. Well, I am decidedly not neutral. I am very much pro-Israel. But I do think that there is a reasonable solution which will serve the Palestinians as well as the Israelis.

Ya, I'm similar except pro-Palestinian and I firmly believe any solution must include the needs and recognition of both Israel and the Palestine as states and more importantly, individual people.

Do you believe that the arab muslims should have taken up residence in the land granted to them by the LoN and not try to take the Jewish portion by violent means. Set the border of Palestine and Israel as those delineated in the mandate of Palestine.

I believe that the people should take up residence where they've had their residence, not being forceably expelled and having their lands confiscated.

and if they are on land their grandparents sold and the family no long owns, on land they were renting before the own sold it, or squatting on land they had any claim to but perhaps a grand parent might have worked on the property one year. Land that was never registers and never paid taxes on..............

Just because they lived on the property under jordan does not mean they have legal title to the land

Jest because the land happens to be in the WB does not mean it was not land that belonged to jews.

Land rights are more complicated that who sleeps where last night.

It is for the time being land the PA does not control when they decided Oslo was dead and would no longer work with israel.

2% of land that would have been part of any land trade in a final deal.

If they don't go back to talks, it will remain land in Israeli hands, at least till old agreements are complied with

But then...you ignore something, and that is all the land that the state of Israel confiscated under "absentee landowner" laws.

That happens in every country. Even if you live there and don't pay taxes or keep the land within zoning regs you can be kicked out and the land sold or turned to state property. You can live there and if you don't pay for services they are turned off and you being there can be considered hazard or life threatening and you can be evinced and the land taken. If he state need the land for road or public works, or if it rezoned, they can force you off the land with little or no compensation.

Israel is not unique.

Israel had open courts for palestinians to seek compensation or return of land. They had the right to return and become an Israeli citizen through family reunification if they had not been involved in attack on Israel.

Palestinians had many right and avenues through the legal system in Israel. Far too many choose violence. They could have accepted Israels right to exist, and they could exist within Israel as Israelis. Palestinians want to exterminate Israel.

The PA had the right and opportunity to negotiate with Israel over land, trade, and other rights or opportunities so they could live in peace together. They choose to walk away.

Palestinians could have had a state more than 65 years ago, but they refused and opted to attack Israel, and egypt and jordan occupied land that might have been part of that state. Jews were forced to leave land hey owned across the middle east with nothing but what they could carry. The were not compensated for their losses or allowed back.

Jews owning land in gaza were force to leave their land for the sake of peace that never came.

Jews land now in Israeli control is being reclaimed and developed. It also provided good jobs for palestinians. Palestinians are even allowed to apply for work permit to work within Israel at twice the pay they would get in the WB.

2% of land for israeli security that was jewish owned for which the would get other land in exchange. If the land was to become part of palestine, the jewish owners should still have the right to stay and become palestinian citizens

 

[Shusha]

What I AM saying is that it is a reasonable point of discussion and that opinions arguing one way or another are not necessarily anti-semitic because the argument is reasonable.

No. No, its not. There is absolutely no reasonable argument to be made that the Jewish people do not have a distinct culture.

I'm not arguing they have "no culture" - what I'm saying is it is perfectly reasonable to argue whether one culture unifies them all - or whether it's a religion unifying them...or both. It's a RATIONAL OBJECTIVE argument that doesn't imply antisemitism merely differing interpretations what what is a "culture".

Again. No. Its not a rational, objective argument. Go ahead. Try it. Give me a definition of "culture", a rational, objective definition of "culture' and we'll test it.

Then, surely the Palestinians have the right of return don't they?

Surely, they do. To a homeland of their own, with consideration given to both the Palestinians and the Jewish people in determining where that homeland is.

But to answer your question, if there was an unlimited right of "return" - where would you draw the line. My ancestors came from Norway and Wales, among other places. Does that give me and my descendents an open ended right to return there?

Sure. As individuals whose national group already has a national homeland, why shouldn't you receive priority when immigrating there? My ancestors came to Canada from Ireland and Scotland in the early 1800's. Why shouldn't I get preference if I choose to return to my homeland? (This is entirely a different right than to return to a specific house which was privately owned and sold or what-have-you.)

Before the Jews were there, there were other people....what about them?

Sadly, they no longer exist as peoples. If they did -- I would be all over granting them some territory for self-determination.

Based on your argument - much of America MUST cede it's territorial claims to the First Nations. So...where does this end?

While I wouldn't say "much" of America (or Canada), I fully and wholeheartedly support First Nations territorial claims. In spades. Yes, please. And with a side of fries and a double scoop of ice cream.

But, to flip the coin, as it were, are you arguing that the First Nations peoples should NOT be able to have national self-determination? What is your reasoning? How might this reasoning apply to other peoples and situations?

 

[Phoenall]

The arab muslims were nomadic farm workers that followed the harvests and lived in tent cities, they did not live on the land permanently. Once this is understood the rest falls into place very easily

That is not true. There were plenty of permanent settlements.

Mainly Jewish and Christian with just a few arab muslim. The reports at the time refer to the arab muslim villages as crude mud huts with no sanitation or facilities. The Ottomans tried to get the arab muslims to settle in Palestine and they refused all 3 times it was tried. That is how much the arab muslims regard Palestine as their land.

 

[Phoenall]

What I AM saying is that it is a reasonable point of discussion and that opinions arguing one way or another are not necessarily anti-semitic because the argument is reasonable.

No. No, its not. There is absolutely no reasonable argument to be made that the Jewish people do not have a distinct culture.

I'm not arguing they have "no culture" - what I'm saying is it is perfectly reasonable to argue whether one culture unifies them all - or whether it's a religion unifying them...or both. It's a RATIONAL OBJECTIVE argument that doesn't imply antisemitism merely differing interpretations what what is a "culture".

Again. No. Its not a rational, objective argument. Go ahead. Try it. Give me a definition of "culture", a rational, objective definition of "culture' and we'll test it.

Then, surely the Palestinians have the right of return don't they?

Surely, they do. To a homeland of their own, with consideration given to both the Palestinians and the Jewish people in determining where that homeland is.

But to answer your question, if there was an unlimited right of "return" - where would you draw the line. My ancestors came from Norway and Wales, among other places. Does that give me and my descendents an open ended right to return there?

Sure. As individuals whose national group already has a national homeland, why shouldn't you receive priority when immigrating there? My ancestors came to Canada from Ireland and Scotland in the early 1800's. Why shouldn't I get preference if I choose to return to my homeland? (This is entirely a different right than to return to a specific house which was privately owned and sold or what-have-you.)

Before the Jews were there, there were other people....what about them?

Sadly, they no longer exist as peoples. If they did -- I would be all over granting them some territory for self-determination.

Based on your argument - much of America MUST cede it's territorial claims to the First Nations. So...where does this end?

While I wouldn't say "much" of America (or Canada), I fully and wholeheartedly support First Nations territorial claims. In spades. Yes, please. And with a side of fries and a double scoop of ice cream.

But, to flip the coin, as it were, are you arguing that the First Nations peoples should NOT be able to have national self-determination? What is your reasoning? How might this reasoning apply to other peoples and situations?

Here we go again with the right of return that has no basis in international law. There is no right of return in existence, if there was then all the arab muslims need do is claim they once lived in the US and

Ha. Well, I am decidedly not neutral. I am very much pro-Israel. But I do think that there is a reasonable solution which will serve the Palestinians as well as the Israelis.

Ya, I'm similar except pro-Palestinian and I firmly believe any solution must include the needs and recognition of both Israel and the Palestine as states and more importantly, individual people.

Do you believe that the arab muslims should have taken up residence in the land granted to them by the LoN and not try to take the Jewish portion by violent means. Set the border of Palestine and Israel as those delineated in the mandate of Palestine.

I believe that the people should take up residence where they've had their residence, not being forceably expelled and having their lands confiscated.

and if they are on land their grandparents sold and the family no long owns, on land they were renting before the own sold it, or squatting on land they had any claim to but perhaps a grand parent might have worked on the property one year. Land that was never registers and never paid taxes on..............

Just because they lived on the property under jordan does not mean they have legal title to the land

Jest because the land happens to be in the WB does not mean it was not land that belonged to jews.

Land rights are more complicated that who sleeps where last night.

It is for the time being land the PA does not control when they decided Oslo was dead and would no longer work with israel.

2% of land that would have been part of any land trade in a final deal.

If they don't go back to talks, it will remain land in Israeli hands, at least till old agreements are complied with

But then...you ignore something, and that is all the land that the state of Israel confiscated under "absentee landowner" laws.

After the Palestinians had done exactly the same thing some years earlier, which has been posted about on this board a lot recently. So what was sauce for the Goose seems to be denied the Jews as you don't see them being as deserving as the Palestinians. Once again you single out Israel for unfair comments knowing that the arab muslims had passed more aggressive laws in 1949 stealing every grain of Jewish owned sand in the west bank contrary to the LoN mandate and UN charter.

 

[Phoenall]

Ha. Well, I am decidedly not neutral. I am very much pro-Israel. But I do think that there is a reasonable solution which will serve the Palestinians as well as the Israelis.

Ya, I'm similar except pro-Palestinian and I firmly believe any solution must include the needs and recognition of both Israel and the Palestine as states and more importantly, individual people.

Do you believe that the arab muslims should have taken up residence in the land granted to them by the LoN and not try to take the Jewish portion by violent means. Set the border of Palestine and Israel as those delineated in the mandate of Palestine.

I believe that the people should take up residence where they've had their residence, not being forceably expelled and having their lands confiscated.

and if they are on land their grandparents sold and the family no long owns, on land they were renting before the own sold it, or squatting on land they had any claim to but perhaps a grand parent might have worked on the property one year. Land that was never registers and never paid taxes on..............

Just because they lived on the property under jordan does not mean they have legal title to the land

Jest because the land happens to be in the WB does not mean it was not land that belonged to jews.

Land rights are more complicated that who sleeps where last night.

It is for the time being land the PA does not control when they decided Oslo was dead and would no longer work with israel.

2% of land that would have been part of any land trade in a final deal.

If they don't go back to talks, it will remain land in Israeli hands, at least till old agreements are complied with

Why do you always just assume the Palestinians are wrong and the Israeli's are right?

Because the evidence, historical records, first hand experiences and reality show that this is generally the case in 99.9% of the situation.

 

[Juicin]

Would you define yourself as pro- or anti- Israel and/or pro- or anti- Palestine?

What distinguishes the different designations?


I, personally, consider myself both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian.

There are those who support the right of return

And there are those that support a Jewish State

The two cannot coexist and is the most meaningful distinction there is no middle ground here that could feasibly be laid out. Anyone with any sense of morality supports the right of return, which is an inherently* anti zionist position.

 

[ForeverYoung436]

Would you define yourself as pro- or anti- Israel and/or pro- or anti- Palestine?

What distinguishes the different designations?


I, personally, consider myself both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian.

There are those who support the right of return

And there are those that support a Jewish State

The two cannot coexist and is the most meaningful distinction there is no middle ground here that could feasibly be laid out. Anyone with any sense of morality supports the right of return, which is an inherently* anti zionist position.

On the contrary, Israel's "Right of Return" law for all Jews around the world, fits in well with Zionism.

 

[Juicin]

Would you define yourself as pro- or anti- Israel and/or pro- or anti- Palestine?

What distinguishes the different designations?


I, personally, consider myself both pro-Israel and pro-Palestinian.

There are those who support the right of return

And there are those that support a Jewish State

The two cannot coexist and is the most meaningful distinction there is no middle ground here that could feasibly be laid out. Anyone with any sense of morality supports the right of return, which is an inherently* anti zionist position.

On the contrary, Israel's "Right of Return" law for all Jews around the world, fits in well with Zionism.

To have a Right of Return you'd have to prove that you have a right to be there in the first place. European Jews cannot do that, just saying it doesn't make it true. If I as a Brahmin marry non Indians for 20 generations my kin will have lost their claim to Dehli long ago. There are only a couple thousand Jewish families that have any right to be in Palestine. The rest were are all there illegally from British occupation or immigration after ethnic cleansing.