Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Oh here we go again denying homelands. How predictable. We just can't seem to move beyond accepting the fact that this area is the homeland to two different sets of people and therein lies the problem.
Arabs couldn't accept Israel's revival,
demanding domination over the entire middle east.
The problem lies in the fact they can't understand land belongs to a people, not otherwise.
And this land belongs to only one people, and in fact one of the longest records in history of a connection between a people and its land.
What do Arabs have, forging a name the meaning of which they don't even know?
And that view is exactly the problem.
Exactly how?
Maybe that's the remedy.
When a land that belongs to multiple peoples who view the land as belonging to only one of them - it creates problems for the other peoples who feel it is their land as well.
More like Arabs want domination over the entire middle east, Israel says 'nah, this 1% is mine and has my name written on it, I will never inherit with You, and You will never eat me up, ever."
Now back to the theme of the thread,
do you start realizing how a century of zero sum game is now turning on the Arabs?
This article is heavy on rhetoric and light on substance. ("Wild-eyed Zionist fanatics" pah-leeze, can we order up some credible journalism, here?)
About the only sentence which even TRIES to discuss the plan is this one:
The envisaged Palestinian entity ... lacks any trappings of statehood: Sovereignty, contiguous territories, a capital, control of borders, armed forces, etc.
What counter-offers could Palestine make to solve these vague complaints? What else is needed to meet the criteria of sovereignty? How can the territories be made contiguous? What is needed in order for a city to be a capital? What is meant by "control of borders"? What sort of armed forces? Also items she forgot to mention, but should have: control over airspace, control over territorial waters.
Before you go all, "But Palestine MUST have a military or else!" on me, a couple things. There are 21 countries in the world with no armed forces, either by choice or by restriction from another State. So no, she doesn't have to have a military. Also, remember this is a PEACE Accord. The base assumption is that the two States agree not to attack each other and that peace is in the BEST INTERESTS of BOTH Parties. Going all Gaza after signing a peace agreement is going to be BAD for the Palestinians. And it will be the responsibility of Palestine to DEMONSTRATE its peaceful nature by agreeing to be monitored by Israel and actively working to prevent the importation of weapons, terrorism, "freedom fighting" and playing the happy little martyrs game.
I agree with you on this - Palestine does not have to have a military and it's important to keep in mind that this agreement is coming off of a defensive war which Israel won. It seems reminds me of the agreements we made with Japan after WW2. No military. I think that is good point to keep.Which war was that?Palestine does not have to have a military and it's important to keep in mind that this agreement is coming off of a defensive war which Israel won.
What war did the Palestinians lose?
The Palis were never attacked; perhaps that’s why there are 6 million of them at the moment.The Palestinians were virtually all unarmed civilians attacked by Israel's military that included WWII military equipment.I agree with you on this - Palestine does not have to have a military and it's important to keep in mind that this agreement is coming off of a defensive war which Israel won. It seems reminds me of the agreements we made with Japan after WW2. No military. I think that is good point to keep.Which war was that?Palestine does not have to have a military and it's important to keep in mind that this agreement is coming off of a defensive war which Israel won.
What war did the Palestinians lose?
They in conjunction with the Arab states lost the war against the state of Israel. The plain fact is - Israel is not going away. And for the Palestinians rights and ability to live prosperously and peacefully, that needs to be recognized so something can actually happen to allow the Palestinians to come into their own and define themselves by something other than conflict.
At some point, if you care about the Palestinians AS a people, with rights and a homeland, you need to recognize this and recognize that this is a shared homeland.
So Israel isn't going away. It won't dissolve nor should it. How can the international community help the Palestinians realize a future?Palestine never had an army. They never attacked Israel.They in conjunction with the Arab states lost the war against the state of Israel.
They were not part of the1948 war.
You don't need a standing army to wage war or attack. Witness ISIS and Al Queda (not that I am comparing their actions to the Palestinian) - but the point is attack and defense isn't dependent on the traditional army.
Does the land belong to the native population or to foreign settlers?Arabs couldn't accept Israel's revival,
demanding domination over the entire middle east.
The problem lies in the fact they can't understand land belongs to a people, not otherwise.
And this land belongs to only one people, and in fact one of the longest records in history of a connection between a people and its land.
What do Arabs have, forging a name the meaning of which they don't even know?
And that view is exactly the problem.
Exactly how?
Maybe that's the remedy.
When a land that belongs to multiple peoples who view the land as belonging to only one of them - it creates problems for the other peoples who feel it is their land as well.
Most "Palestinians" came from Arab countries as recent settlers after the Zionists created more employment opportunities. They are not "native" to the land or descended from the now-defunct Canaanites. On the other hand, Israelis speak the same language that was spoken 2,000 years ago, as well as use the same currency (proven by archaeology), and celebrate the same national holidays. Most Arabacized names of the cities and towns in Israel and Judea (or the West Bank) come from the Hebrew. So Jews aren't "foreign" to Israel.
Unsubstantiated Israeli talking point.I agree with you on this - Palestine does not have to have a military and it's important to keep in mind that this agreement is coming off of a defensive war which Israel won. It seems reminds me of the agreements we made with Japan after WW2. No military. I think that is good point to keep.Which war was that?Palestine does not have to have a military and it's important to keep in mind that this agreement is coming off of a defensive war which Israel won.
What war did the Palestinians lose?
They in conjunction with the Arab states lost the war against the state of Israel. The plain fact is - Israel is not going away. And for the Palestinians rights and ability to live prosperously and peacefully, that needs to be recognized so something can actually happen to allow the Palestinians to come into their own and define themselves by something other than conflict.
At some point, if you care about the Palestinians AS a people, with rights and a homeland, you need to recognize this and recognize that this is a shared homeland.
So Israel isn't going away. It won't dissolve nor should it. How can the international community help the Palestinians realize a future?Palestine never had an army. They never attacked Israel.They in conjunction with the Arab states lost the war against the state of Israel.
They were not part of the1948 war.
Correct, because they were never a country.
The Palestinians were virtually all unarmed civilians attacked by Israel's military that included WWII military equipment.I agree with you on this - Palestine does not have to have a military and it's important to keep in mind that this agreement is coming off of a defensive war which Israel won. It seems reminds me of the agreements we made with Japan after WW2. No military. I think that is good point to keep.Which war was that?Palestine does not have to have a military and it's important to keep in mind that this agreement is coming off of a defensive war which Israel won.
What war did the Palestinians lose?
They in conjunction with the Arab states lost the war against the state of Israel. The plain fact is - Israel is not going away. And for the Palestinians rights and ability to live prosperously and peacefully, that needs to be recognized so something can actually happen to allow the Palestinians to come into their own and define themselves by something other than conflict.
At some point, if you care about the Palestinians AS a people, with rights and a homeland, you need to recognize this and recognize that this is a shared homeland.
So Israel isn't going away. It won't dissolve nor should it. How can the international community help the Palestinians realize a future?Palestine never had an army. They never attacked Israel.They in conjunction with the Arab states lost the war against the state of Israel.
They were not part of the1948 war.
You don't need a standing army to wage war or attack. Witness ISIS and Al Queda (not that I am comparing their actions to the Palestinian) - but the point is attack and defense isn't dependent on the traditional army.
The Palestinians were virtually all unarmed civilians attacked by Israel's military that included WWII military equipment.I agree with you on this - Palestine does not have to have a military and it's important to keep in mind that this agreement is coming off of a defensive war which Israel won. It seems reminds me of the agreements we made with Japan after WW2. No military. I think that is good point to keep.Which war was that?Palestine does not have to have a military and it's important to keep in mind that this agreement is coming off of a defensive war which Israel won.
What war did the Palestinians lose?
They in conjunction with the Arab states lost the war against the state of Israel. The plain fact is - Israel is not going away. And for the Palestinians rights and ability to live prosperously and peacefully, that needs to be recognized so something can actually happen to allow the Palestinians to come into their own and define themselves by something other than conflict.
At some point, if you care about the Palestinians AS a people, with rights and a homeland, you need to recognize this and recognize that this is a shared homeland.
So Israel isn't going away. It won't dissolve nor should it. How can the international community help the Palestinians realize a future?Palestine never had an army. They never attacked Israel.They in conjunction with the Arab states lost the war against the state of Israel.
They were not part of the1948 war.
You don't need a standing army to wage war or attack. Witness ISIS and Al Queda (not that I am comparing their actions to the Palestinian) - but the point is attack and defense isn't dependent on the traditional army.
The Palestinians were virtually all unarmed civilians attacked by Israel's military that included WWII military equipment.I agree with you on this - Palestine does not have to have a military and it's important to keep in mind that this agreement is coming off of a defensive war which Israel won. It seems reminds me of the agreements we made with Japan after WW2. No military. I think that is good point to keep.Which war was that?Palestine does not have to have a military and it's important to keep in mind that this agreement is coming off of a defensive war which Israel won.
What war did the Palestinians lose?
They in conjunction with the Arab states lost the war against the state of Israel. The plain fact is - Israel is not going away. And for the Palestinians rights and ability to live prosperously and peacefully, that needs to be recognized so something can actually happen to allow the Palestinians to come into their own and define themselves by something other than conflict.
At some point, if you care about the Palestinians AS a people, with rights and a homeland, you need to recognize this and recognize that this is a shared homeland.
So Israel isn't going away. It won't dissolve nor should it. How can the international community help the Palestinians realize a future?Palestine never had an army. They never attacked Israel.They in conjunction with the Arab states lost the war against the state of Israel.
They were not part of the1948 war.
You don't need a standing army to wage war or attack. Witness ISIS and Al Queda (not that I am comparing their actions to the Palestinian) - but the point is attack and defense isn't dependent on the traditional army.
That is where it get's difficult. And here is why, imo:
Some of those communities (settlements) were built in areas that had had traditionally Jewish populations driven out through conflict.
Some of those communities are now multigenerational.
Some of those communities are legally bought land.
Some of those communities are mere "outposts" with a handful of people and tents (not necessarily legal in Israel's courts).
Some of those communities are on questionably or even illegally obtained land.
Given that - at what point do you justify expelling civilians? How do you decide? If you expel them...does Israel have the right to expel Arabs?
My opinion is in the case of 1,2 and 3 involuntary expulsion would be criminal.
In the case of 4 and 5 courts should decide.
Does the land belong to the native population or to foreign settlers?And that view is exactly the problem.
Exactly how?
Maybe that's the remedy.
When a land that belongs to multiple peoples who view the land as belonging to only one of them - it creates problems for the other peoples who feel it is their land as well.
Most "Palestinians" came from Arab countries as recent settlers after the Zionists created more employment opportunities. They are not "native" to the land or descended from the now-defunct Canaanites. On the other hand, Israelis speak the same language that was spoken 2,000 years ago, as well as use the same currency (proven by archaeology), and celebrate the same national holidays. Most Arabacized names of the cities and towns in Israel and Judea (or the West Bank) come from the Hebrew. So Jews aren't "foreign" to Israel.
Actually, thought there was SOME Arab immigration for jobs there is nothing to show that "most" came for that purpose. Neither group is foreign.
What would the US say if someone wanted to hack off everything west of the Mississippi and give it to foreign settlers?
Abbas' leadership is not very strong and he is not very popular.
I think parts of the Arab world is maturing in the area of world wide geo-politics and economies. I think they realize making peace with Israel is in everyone's best interest. IMO only. But seeing the refugees from the conflicts in Iraq and Syria, the growth of much more sophisticated terrorist ideologies that are destabilizing to themselves. I don't know...
Arabs couldn't accept Israel's revival,
demanding domination over the entire middle east.
The problem lies in the fact they can't understand land belongs to a people, not otherwise.
And this land belongs to only one people, and in fact one of the longest records in history of a connection between a people and its land.
What do Arabs have, forging a name the meaning of which they don't even know?
And that view is exactly the problem.
Exactly how?
Maybe that's the remedy.
When a land that belongs to multiple peoples who view the land as belonging to only one of them - it creates problems for the other peoples who feel it is their land as well.
More like Arabs want domination over the entire middle east, Israel says 'nah, this 1% is mine and has my name written on it, I will never inherit with You, and You will never eat me up, ever."
Now back to the theme of the thread,
do you start realizing how a century of zero sum game is now turning on the Arabs?
On the first - I disagree in what you said that it only belongs to one people.
On the second - yes, I agree, and in line with that they need to stop holding the refugees hostage and allow them to integrate into their states or, to Palestine should that be achieved. You can't continue keeping people in limbo like that to serve political purposes.
That is where it get's difficult. And here is why, imo:
Some of those communities (settlements) were built in areas that had had traditionally Jewish populations driven out through conflict.
Some of those communities are now multigenerational.
Some of those communities are legally bought land.
Some of those communities are mere "outposts" with a handful of people and tents (not necessarily legal in Israel's courts).
Some of those communities are on questionably or even illegally obtained land.
Given that - at what point do you justify expelling civilians? How do you decide? If you expel them...does Israel have the right to expel Arabs?
My opinion is in the case of 1,2 and 3 involuntary expulsion would be criminal.
In the case of 4 and 5 courts should decide.
No, that's not "difficult", it's mere whataboutery of no value other than for the purpose of hasbara. Injecting one's own population into occupied territory is illegal. It is no less illegal just because it's long standing. No occupier can "legally" buy occupied land. Israel is at fault here, and has to correct it (or otherwise hope to get an agreement on land swaps). That has been confirmed again, and again, and again.
So, what would be different than what we have now?
Agree with you here...and the idea of a single bulky centralized state is from our modern idea of what a nation state should look like. And maybe it's time to ignore that.
But the second part - not sure about. What powers would be excluded from this?
I think that is what was also bothering me, but I couldn't clearly identify it, and was thinking more in that they don't have direct access to major rivers, their own ports or other borders....trade is awfully dependent on going through Israel.
Does the land belong to the native population or to foreign settlers?Arabs couldn't accept Israel's revival,
demanding domination over the entire middle east.
The problem lies in the fact they can't understand land belongs to a people, not otherwise.
And this land belongs to only one people, and in fact one of the longest records in history of a connection between a people and its land.
What do Arabs have, forging a name the meaning of which they don't even know?
And that view is exactly the problem.
Exactly how?
Maybe that's the remedy.
When a land that belongs to multiple peoples who view the land as belonging to only one of them - it creates problems for the other peoples who feel it is their land as well.
Most "Palestinians" came from Arab countries as recent settlers after the Zionists created more employment opportunities. They are not "native" to the land or descended from the now-defunct Canaanites. On the other hand, Israelis speak the same language that was spoken 2,000 years ago, as well as use the same currency (proven by archaeology), and celebrate the same national holidays. Most Arabacized names of the cities and towns in Israel and Judea (or the West Bank) come from the Hebrew. So Jews aren't "foreign" to Israel.
Israeli bullshit, of course. The Zionists kept economic improvements to themselves.Most "Palestinians" came from Arab countries as recent settlers after the Zionists created more employment opportunities.
Does the land belong to the native population or to foreign settlers?And that view is exactly the problem.
Exactly how?
Maybe that's the remedy.
When a land that belongs to multiple peoples who view the land as belonging to only one of them - it creates problems for the other peoples who feel it is their land as well.
Most "Palestinians" came from Arab countries as recent settlers after the Zionists created more employment opportunities. They are not "native" to the land or descended from the now-defunct Canaanites. On the other hand, Israelis speak the same language that was spoken 2,000 years ago, as well as use the same currency (proven by archaeology), and celebrate the same national holidays. Most Arabacized names of the cities and towns in Israel and Judea (or the West Bank) come from the Hebrew. So Jews aren't "foreign" to Israel.Israeli bullshit, of course. The Zionists kept economic improvements to themselves.Most "Palestinians" came from Arab countries as recent settlers after the Zionists created more employment opportunities.
No, that's not "difficult", it's mere whataboutery of no value other than for the purpose of hasbara. Injecting one's own population into occupied territory is illegal. It is no less illegal just because it's long standing. No occupier can "legally" buy occupied land. Israel is at fault here, and has to correct it (or otherwise hope to get an agreement on land swaps). That has been confirmed again, and again, and again.
It's not a "not real" problem because no matter what the logistics of it ARE problematic. So to shuffle it off as a "not real" problem is in my opinion unreal.
Just for reference can you think of any other country that has had to deal with something like this in terms of borders?
Okay, so I've been using "not a real problem" quite a bit. (Though I think rylah actually said it first). Perhaps I should explain what I mean by that.
"Not a real problem" is code for things that one side or the other uses to shut down negotiations, rather than being either a practical problem which needs to be solved, or being a position which is strongly held by either of the Parties for reasons of national importance.
Contiguity is one such "not a real problem". As long as people can freely travel in their own States and not have to cross international borders to get to work, then its not a real problem. (And its actually an improvement over today's situation). It just needs a work around. The reason it is presented as a "real problem" when it is not is to continue to give credence to the demonizing notion of "apartheid". Its a way of keeping up the complaints when there is a perfectly reasonable solution to the problem.
Sovereignty over the Jordan Valley is a real problem. From the Israeli side, its a real security problem. 3 minute response times to incoming rockets, for example. Long border with no control over weapons smuggling. From the Palestinian side, it limits trade and agriculture. Real problem.
Make sense?
