What do the neo-Zionists believe will happen?

[Roudy]

Designated as the "future homeland of the Jewish people, to be ruled and administered by the Jewish people." Voted and approved in the UN by 161 out of 193 nations. So, you think that means they gave the land to the Arabs?

Look, get over it, the Jewish people are in charge now. The topic of this thread is "what do neo Zionists believe will happen". The Israelis handed Gaza over to the Palestinians, the fruits of which did not bear any peace or prosperity, nor did it make any progress towards it. In fact it was a step in the wrong direction. So, based on those results, the plan is now to demographically conquer and therefore annex the West Bank in a few generations. And there's nothing anybody can do about it. It's happening before our very own eyes, and that's what's freaking you guys out, the window is getting smaller and smaller for a viable state, and eventually it will be closed.

Actually it did not give any land to anyone. UN General Assembly Resolution 181 recommended that the Security Council partition Palestine. The Security Council did not partition Palestine.

Whatever! The British designated the land as the future homeland of the Jews, and it was voted overwhelmingly as such by the UN. It's now 70 years later and Israel is a strong, vibrant, democratic state, yet your club wants to keep engaging in historical revisionism of minute details as if it's going to make a difference or change the facts on the ground today.

The more the Palestinians and the Muslim world have tried to destroy the Jewish state, the more they have lost the chance to ever have a viable Palestinian state! In two to three generations the Palestinians will have Gaza only, and who knows, maybe even Egypt will invade and annex that, due to security threats it poses to Egypt.

 

[browsing deer]

I am getting a little tired of presenting fact. I am now curious to understand what our resident Zionists believe will happen, or hope will happen, in the territory now controlled by Jews in Israel, the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza.

Do they believe that Jews will be able to rule over all the Gentiles now under their control indefinitely?

Do they believe that they will be able to disengage from Gaza and rule over the rest of the Gentiles indefinitely?

Do they believe that they will be able to evict, or otherwise eliminate, all the Gentiles now under their control and rule an exclusively Jewish population indefinitely.

Any other solution.

Gaza is a Judenrein autonomous semi state that will continue to maladminister itself. It will be a bad example as to why Israel will not allow self administration of Judea and Samaria. Ever.

Israel is the state. Why do you talk of Jews and zionists instead of Israelis? Mrs Meyer down the block is is zionist and a jew, but she has no say as she lives here, rather than in Israel. Lots of Christian arab, druze and bedouin live in Israel and actively participate in elections there.

 

[Roudy]

Bottom line Jordan made a very smart deal during its peace treaty with Israel. They dumped their problem on the Isrselis in exchange for ceasing of all hostilities. I think it's time for Israel to possibility renegotiate certain aspects of the peace treaty and provide enticements to the Jordanians to take back a big chunk of the "Palestinian refugees" they created when they attacked Israel.

"The Arab armies entered Palestine to protect the Palestinians from the Zionist tyranny but, instead, THEY ABANDONED THEM, FORCED THEM TO EMIGRATE, imposed upon them a political and ideological blockade and threw them into prisons similar to the ghettos in which the Jews used to live in Eastern Europe, as if we were condemned to change places with them; they moved out of their ghettos and we occupied similar ones. The Arab States succeeded in scattering the Palestinian people and in destroying their unity. They did not recognize them as a unified people until the States of the world did so, and this is regrettable".

- by Abu Mazen, from the article titled: "What We Have Learned and What We Should Do", published in Falastin el Thawra, the official journal of the PLO, of Beirut, in March 1976

 

[Billo_Really]

No, the international community believes that the Israeli government is the one acting illegal letting the Jews settle in there.

Drop all the subsidies the government is giving these Israeli insurgents and your statement will become true.

The settlers themselves are not illegal, they're obeying the law of their land. you need to realize the huge difference there.

You need to realize that's not Israeli land and they can't transfer a part of their population into that area. You say they're not. Okay, they're still guilty, because they're not stopping it either.

Now write this down, because I'm getting sick of repeating myself. And seek help for this selective ADD you keep having. Ready?

The settlers are in violation of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention

ARTICLE 49
Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.​

 

[Billo_Really]

Gaza is a Judenrein autonomous semi state that will continue to maladminister itself. It will be a bad example as to why Israel will not allow self administration of Judea and Samaria. Ever.

Israel is the state. Why do you talk of Jews and zionists instead of Israelis? Mrs Meyer down the block is is zionist and a jew, but she has no say as she lives here, rather than in Israel. Lots of Christian arab, druze and bedouin live in Israel and actively participate in elections there.

Judaism is a religion; Zionism is a political movement.

 

[Billo_Really]

Asking a Zionist what they think would happen, is like trying to teach sheep how to vote.

You're asking them to do something, they're mentally incapable of doing.


Logical deductive reasoning.

 

[Lipush]

Wow. an actual insult from Billy.

I know I put the tissue here somewhere.

 

[Lipush]

No, the international community believes that the Israeli government is the one acting illegal letting the Jews settle in there.

Drop all the subsidies the government is giving these Israeli insurgents and your statement will become true.

The settlers themselves are not illegal, they're obeying the law of their land. you need to realize the huge difference there.

You need to realize that's not Israeli land and they can't transfer a part of their population into that area. You say they're not. Okay, they're still guilty, because they're not stopping it either.

Now write this down, because I'm getting sick of repeating myself. And seek help for this selective ADD you keep having. Ready?

The settlers are in violation of Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention

ARTICLE 49
Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.​

To be guilty of disobeying the law, you have to belong to the population to which the law is addressing.

I'm no Einstein, but I can follow that simple logic yet.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Designated as the "future homeland of the Jewish people, to be ruled and administered by the Jewish people." Voted and approved in the UN by 161 out of 193 nations. So, you think that means they gave the land to the Arabs?

Look, get over it, the Jewish people are in charge now. The topic of this thread is "what do neo Zionists believe will happen". The Israelis handed Gaza over to the Palestinians, the fruits of which did not bear any peace or prosperity, nor did it make any progress towards it. In fact it was a step in the wrong direction. So, based on those results, the plan is now to demographically conquer and therefore annex the West Bank in a few generations. And there's nothing anybody can do about it. It's happening before our very own eyes, and that's what's freaking you guys out, the window is getting smaller and smaller for a viable state, and eventually it will be closed.

Actually it did not give any land to anyone. UN General Assembly Resolution 181 recommended that the Security Council partition Palestine. The Security Council did not partition Palestine.

Whatever! The British designated the land as the future homeland of the Jews, and it was voted overwhelmingly as such by the UN. It's now 70 years later and Israel is a strong, vibrant, democratic state, yet your club wants to keep engaging in historical revisionism of minute details as if it's going to make a difference or change the facts on the ground today.

The more the Palestinians and the Muslim world have tried to destroy the Jewish state, the more they have lost the chance to ever have a viable Palestinian state! In two to three generations the Palestinians will have Gaza only, and who knows, maybe even Egypt will invade and annex that, due to security threats it poses to Egypt.

Whatever! The British designated the land as the future homeland of the Jews,​

You don't know what that means.

 

[Elvis Obama]

Designated as the "future homeland of the Jewish people, to be ruled and administered by the Jewish people." Voted and approved in the UN by 161 out of 193 nations. So, you think that means they gave the land to the Arabs?

Look, get over it, the Jewish people are in charge now. The topic of this thread is "what do neo Zionists believe will happen". The Israelis handed Gaza over to the Palestinians, the fruits of which did not bear any peace or prosperity, nor did it make any progress towards it. In fact it was a step in the wrong direction. So, based on those results, the plan is now to demographically conquer and therefore annex the West Bank in a few generations. And there's nothing anybody can do about it. It's happening before our very own eyes, and that's what's freaking you guys out, the window is getting smaller and smaller for a viable state, and eventually it will be closed.

Actually it did not give any land to anyone. UN General Assembly Resolution 181 recommended that the Security Council partition Palestine. The Security Council did not partition Palestine.

No, they did it. They did what the Brits could not do. As has been noted, they did it by a vote of 161 to 32. Do you think those nations didn't know what they were voting for? All the Palestinians had to do, to grab their slice of the pie, was to say "We're a state!" Instead they launched a war, with Egypt and Syria helpin' out their stateless buds. All that work to neatly partition that worthless chunk of desert, and the Arabs done went and spoiled it.

It wasn't just a worthless chunk of desert. It was the home of a million people whose families had lived there for hundreds of years.

Why should they be content with one group of foreigners giving their homeland to another group of foreigners.

What other people in the world would accept that? What would the people in the US do if the UN gave away half of their country?

Why should they be content? No reason I can think of. As far as accepting it goes, well that runs rather contrary to human nature. The strong will wage war, the weak will engage in terrorism and the completely powerless will just sit down and cry.

Not all peoples are the same. Fundamentally, of course they are, but culture is a different matter. Once we created the modern nation, all the peoples of the world wanted one for themselves. Not everyone was successful. The Germans unified into a nation, and so did the Italians. The Indians struggled to achieve it and partially succeeded. The Arabs tried to do it and were very unsuccessful. The Brits and French and Russians carved them up as they saw fit. Were they content? Of course not. Did they have a choice? No.

The Palestinians did not lose half their country. They failed to get a nation. They refused it. Their reason was not because they were defending their ancestral homeland. It was religious motives, not territorial, that drove them. They still do and that won't change for a very long time. They cannot compromise on Jerusalem. Ever. Israel can.

They failed to get a nation. They refused it.​

You are new here and the first thing you do is regurgitate Israel propaganda.

BTW, welcome to the board.

They accepted? I was under the impression they refused.

These kinds of partitions, India and Pakistan for example, happened during the period when nationalism was the driving force in international politics. Why are the Palestinians a special case? Why not China's annexation of Tibet? Why not a campaign to give America back to the Native Americans?

The world was reshaped during this period. The injustices committed during this period are the worst in human history. There will be no recompense for these tragedies. The lines the world collectively drew during this period were not ideal. Borders never are. These borders represent force. They still do.

It's not irrelevant to assign blame and attempt to take the moral high ground. That is how the modern nations make war. Soft power. The Palestinians got screwed and continue to get screwed. Not terribly, in the scale of things. They got some of their sand taken away, but they got a shiny new nation in exchange. They were too culturally primitive to take it. Too motivated by religion.

There are many in the ME who yearn for modernity. The Arab Spring was a brief period when these voices started to get traction, but they lost it. Why? Failure to control the militaries of these countries? Failure to achieve a broad enough base of support amongst the hoi polloi? Modern nations are not built on sand, they're built on a base of people who buy into the social contract which modern nations provide to their people. The Palestinians don't have that. That's their problem, not Israel.

Jordan was the Palestinian's bestest buddy. They were even thinking about moving in together. Then Jordan got smart, abandoned their religiously motivated nonsense and started building a state. They made peace with Israel, received international aid as a consequence and began to build an economy designed to serve the interests of their people. It's called modernity. The same modernity that Atatürk brought to Turkey.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Actually it did not give any land to anyone. UN General Assembly Resolution 181 recommended that the Security Council partition Palestine. The Security Council did not partition Palestine.

No, they did it. They did what the Brits could not do. As has been noted, they did it by a vote of 161 to 32. Do you think those nations didn't know what they were voting for? All the Palestinians had to do, to grab their slice of the pie, was to say "We're a state!" Instead they launched a war, with Egypt and Syria helpin' out their stateless buds. All that work to neatly partition that worthless chunk of desert, and the Arabs done went and spoiled it.

It wasn't just a worthless chunk of desert. It was the home of a million people whose families had lived there for hundreds of years.

Why should they be content with one group of foreigners giving their homeland to another group of foreigners.

What other people in the world would accept that? What would the people in the US do if the UN gave away half of their country?

Why should they be content? No reason I can think of. As far as accepting it goes, well that runs rather contrary to human nature. The strong will wage war, the weak will engage in terrorism and the completely powerless will just sit down and cry.

Not all peoples are the same. Fundamentally, of course they are, but culture is a different matter. Once we created the modern nation, all the peoples of the world wanted one for themselves. Not everyone was successful. The Germans unified into a nation, and so did the Italians. The Indians struggled to achieve it and partially succeeded. The Arabs tried to do it and were very unsuccessful. The Brits and French and Russians carved them up as they saw fit. Were they content? Of course not. Did they have a choice? No.

The Palestinians did not lose half their country. They failed to get a nation. They refused it. Their reason was not because they were defending their ancestral homeland. It was religious motives, not territorial, that drove them. They still do and that won't change for a very long time. They cannot compromise on Jerusalem. Ever. Israel can.

They failed to get a nation. They refused it.​

You are new here and the first thing you do is regurgitate Israel propaganda.

BTW, welcome to the board.

They accepted? I was under the impression they refused.

These kinds of partitions, India and Pakistan for example, happened during the period when nationalism was the driving force in international politics. Why are the Palestinians a special case? Why not China's annexation of Tibet? Why not a campaign to give America back to the Native Americans?

The world was reshaped during this period. The injustices committed during this period are the worst in human history. There will be no recompense for these tragedies. The lines the world collectively drew during this period were not ideal. Borders never are. These borders represent force. They still do.

It's not irrelevant to assign blame and attempt to take the moral high ground. That is how the modern nations make war. Soft power. The Palestinians got screwed and continue to get screwed. Not terribly, in the scale of things. They got some of their sand taken away, but they got a shiny new nation in exchange. They were too culturally primitive to take it. Too motivated by religion.

There are many in the ME who yearn for modernity. The Arab Spring was a brief period when these voices started to get traction, but they lost it. Why? Failure to control the militaries of these countries? Failure to achieve a broad enough base of support amongst the hoi polloi? Modern nations are not built on sand, they're built on a base of people who buy into the social contract which modern nations provide to their people. The Palestinians don't have that. That's their problem, not Israel.

Jordan was the Palestinian's bestest buddy. They were even thinking about moving in together. Then Jordan got smart, abandoned their religiously motivated nonsense and started building a state. They made peace with Israel, received international aid as a consequence and began to build an economy designed to serve the interests of their people. It's called modernity. The same modernity that Atatürk brought to Turkey.

They accepted? I was under the impression they refused.​

What nation plan did they refuse?

 

[Shusha]

What nation plan did they refuse?

They refused to share. They refused anything less than the whole pie.

 

[Roudy]

Asking a Zionist what they think would happen, is like trying to teach sheep how to vote.

You're asking them to do something, they're mentally incapable of doing.


Logical deductive reasoning.

Your statement itself lacked logic or deductive reasoning! Not to mention, your comparison failed as well: "asking" vs "teaching"?!

 

[Roudy]

Gaza is a Judenrein autonomous semi state that will continue to maladminister itself. It will be a bad example as to why Israel will not allow self administration of Judea and Samaria. Ever.

Israel is the state. Why do you talk of Jews and zionists instead of Israelis? Mrs Meyer down the block is is zionist and a jew, but she has no say as she lives here, rather than in Israel. Lots of Christian arab, druze and bedouin live in Israel and actively participate in elections there.

Judaism is a religion; Zionism is a political movement.

Ok whatever. Topic has been discussed before. Conclusion: Zionism and Judaism are intertwined.

 

[Roudy]

What nation plan did they refuse?

They refused to share. They refused anything less than the whole pie.

and from the looks of it, they're going to keep refusing until there is NO PIE.

 

[Elvis Obama]

No, they did it. They did what the Brits could not do. As has been noted, they did it by a vote of 161 to 32. Do you think those nations didn't know what they were voting for? All the Palestinians had to do, to grab their slice of the pie, was to say "We're a state!" Instead they launched a war, with Egypt and Syria helpin' out their stateless buds. All that work to neatly partition that worthless chunk of desert, and the Arabs done went and spoiled it.

It wasn't just a worthless chunk of desert. It was the home of a million people whose families had lived there for hundreds of years.

Why should they be content with one group of foreigners giving their homeland to another group of foreigners.

What other people in the world would accept that? What would the people in the US do if the UN gave away half of their country?

Why should they be content? No reason I can think of. As far as accepting it goes, well that runs rather contrary to human nature. The strong will wage war, the weak will engage in terrorism and the completely powerless will just sit down and cry.

Not all peoples are the same. Fundamentally, of course they are, but culture is a different matter. Once we created the modern nation, all the peoples of the world wanted one for themselves. Not everyone was successful. The Germans unified into a nation, and so did the Italians. The Indians struggled to achieve it and partially succeeded. The Arabs tried to do it and were very unsuccessful. The Brits and French and Russians carved them up as they saw fit. Were they content? Of course not. Did they have a choice? No.

The Palestinians did not lose half their country. They failed to get a nation. They refused it. Their reason was not because they were defending their ancestral homeland. It was religious motives, not territorial, that drove them. They still do and that won't change for a very long time. They cannot compromise on Jerusalem. Ever. Israel can.

They failed to get a nation. They refused it.​

You are new here and the first thing you do is regurgitate Israel propaganda.

BTW, welcome to the board.

They accepted? I was under the impression they refused.

These kinds of partitions, India and Pakistan for example, happened during the period when nationalism was the driving force in international politics. Why are the Palestinians a special case? Why not China's annexation of Tibet? Why not a campaign to give America back to the Native Americans?

The world was reshaped during this period. The injustices committed during this period are the worst in human history. There will be no recompense for these tragedies. The lines the world collectively drew during this period were not ideal. Borders never are. These borders represent force. They still do.

It's not irrelevant to assign blame and attempt to take the moral high ground. That is how the modern nations make war. Soft power. The Palestinians got screwed and continue to get screwed. Not terribly, in the scale of things. They got some of their sand taken away, but they got a shiny new nation in exchange. They were too culturally primitive to take it. Too motivated by religion.

There are many in the ME who yearn for modernity. The Arab Spring was a brief period when these voices started to get traction, but they lost it. Why? Failure to control the militaries of these countries? Failure to achieve a broad enough base of support amongst the hoi polloi? Modern nations are not built on sand, they're built on a base of people who buy into the social contract which modern nations provide to their people. The Palestinians don't have that. That's their problem, not Israel.

Jordan was the Palestinian's bestest buddy. They were even thinking about moving in together. Then Jordan got smart, abandoned their religiously motivated nonsense and started building a state. They made peace with Israel, received international aid as a consequence and began to build an economy designed to serve the interests of their people. It's called modernity. The same modernity that Atatürk brought to Turkey.

They accepted? I was under the impression they refused.​

What nation plan did they refuse?

Their own. They were responsible for their nation plan. All they had to do was declare themselves a state. Then they would have been free to write their own constitution.

They refused because they are a bunch of primitive religious zealots. Not all of them, but simply too many of them. Everything Israel has done with regards to the Palestinians, right or wrong, is due entirely to that fact.

 

[P F Tinmore]

It wasn't just a worthless chunk of desert. It was the home of a million people whose families had lived there for hundreds of years.

Why should they be content with one group of foreigners giving their homeland to another group of foreigners.

What other people in the world would accept that? What would the people in the US do if the UN gave away half of their country?

Why should they be content? No reason I can think of. As far as accepting it goes, well that runs rather contrary to human nature. The strong will wage war, the weak will engage in terrorism and the completely powerless will just sit down and cry.

Not all peoples are the same. Fundamentally, of course they are, but culture is a different matter. Once we created the modern nation, all the peoples of the world wanted one for themselves. Not everyone was successful. The Germans unified into a nation, and so did the Italians. The Indians struggled to achieve it and partially succeeded. The Arabs tried to do it and were very unsuccessful. The Brits and French and Russians carved them up as they saw fit. Were they content? Of course not. Did they have a choice? No.

The Palestinians did not lose half their country. They failed to get a nation. They refused it. Their reason was not because they were defending their ancestral homeland. It was religious motives, not territorial, that drove them. They still do and that won't change for a very long time. They cannot compromise on Jerusalem. Ever. Israel can.

They failed to get a nation. They refused it.​

You are new here and the first thing you do is regurgitate Israel propaganda.

BTW, welcome to the board.

They accepted? I was under the impression they refused.

These kinds of partitions, India and Pakistan for example, happened during the period when nationalism was the driving force in international politics. Why are the Palestinians a special case? Why not China's annexation of Tibet? Why not a campaign to give America back to the Native Americans?

The world was reshaped during this period. The injustices committed during this period are the worst in human history. There will be no recompense for these tragedies. The lines the world collectively drew during this period were not ideal. Borders never are. These borders represent force. They still do.

It's not irrelevant to assign blame and attempt to take the moral high ground. That is how the modern nations make war. Soft power. The Palestinians got screwed and continue to get screwed. Not terribly, in the scale of things. They got some of their sand taken away, but they got a shiny new nation in exchange. They were too culturally primitive to take it. Too motivated by religion.

There are many in the ME who yearn for modernity. The Arab Spring was a brief period when these voices started to get traction, but they lost it. Why? Failure to control the militaries of these countries? Failure to achieve a broad enough base of support amongst the hoi polloi? Modern nations are not built on sand, they're built on a base of people who buy into the social contract which modern nations provide to their people. The Palestinians don't have that. That's their problem, not Israel.

Jordan was the Palestinian's bestest buddy. They were even thinking about moving in together. Then Jordan got smart, abandoned their religiously motivated nonsense and started building a state. They made peace with Israel, received international aid as a consequence and began to build an economy designed to serve the interests of their people. It's called modernity. The same modernity that Atatürk brought to Turkey.

They accepted? I was under the impression they refused.​

What nation plan did they refuse?

Their own. They were responsible for their nation plan. All they had to do was declare themselves a state. Then they would have been free to write their own constitution.

They refused because they are a bunch of primitive religious zealots. Not all of them, but simply too many of them. Everything Israel has done with regards to the Palestinians, right or wrong, is due entirely to that fact.

This Plan?

A/C.1/330 of 14 October 1948

 

[P F Tinmore]

What nation plan did they refuse?

They refused to share. They refused anything less than the whole pie.

What did they refuse to share?

 

[Roudy]

Why should they be content? No reason I can think of. As far as accepting it goes, well that runs rather contrary to human nature. The strong will wage war, the weak will engage in terrorism and the completely powerless will just sit down and cry.

Not all peoples are the same. Fundamentally, of course they are, but culture is a different matter. Once we created the modern nation, all the peoples of the world wanted one for themselves. Not everyone was successful. The Germans unified into a nation, and so did the Italians. The Indians struggled to achieve it and partially succeeded. The Arabs tried to do it and were very unsuccessful. The Brits and French and Russians carved them up as they saw fit. Were they content? Of course not. Did they have a choice? No.

The Palestinians did not lose half their country. They failed to get a nation. They refused it. Their reason was not because they were defending their ancestral homeland. It was religious motives, not territorial, that drove them. They still do and that won't change for a very long time. They cannot compromise on Jerusalem. Ever. Israel can.

They failed to get a nation. They refused it.​

You are new here and the first thing you do is regurgitate Israel propaganda.

BTW, welcome to the board.

They accepted? I was under the impression they refused.

These kinds of partitions, India and Pakistan for example, happened during the period when nationalism was the driving force in international politics. Why are the Palestinians a special case? Why not China's annexation of Tibet? Why not a campaign to give America back to the Native Americans?

The world was reshaped during this period. The injustices committed during this period are the worst in human history. There will be no recompense for these tragedies. The lines the world collectively drew during this period were not ideal. Borders never are. These borders represent force. They still do.

It's not irrelevant to assign blame and attempt to take the moral high ground. That is how the modern nations make war. Soft power. The Palestinians got screwed and continue to get screwed. Not terribly, in the scale of things. They got some of their sand taken away, but they got a shiny new nation in exchange. They were too culturally primitive to take it. Too motivated by religion.

There are many in the ME who yearn for modernity. The Arab Spring was a brief period when these voices started to get traction, but they lost it. Why? Failure to control the militaries of these countries? Failure to achieve a broad enough base of support amongst the hoi polloi? Modern nations are not built on sand, they're built on a base of people who buy into the social contract which modern nations provide to their people. The Palestinians don't have that. That's their problem, not Israel.

Jordan was the Palestinian's bestest buddy. They were even thinking about moving in together. Then Jordan got smart, abandoned their religiously motivated nonsense and started building a state. They made peace with Israel, received international aid as a consequence and began to build an economy designed to serve the interests of their people. It's called modernity. The same modernity that Atatürk brought to Turkey.

They accepted? I was under the impression they refused.​

What nation plan did they refuse?

Their own. They were responsible for their nation plan. All they had to do was declare themselves a state. Then they would have been free to write their own constitution.

They refused because they are a bunch of primitive religious zealots. Not all of them, but simply too many of them. Everything Israel has done with regards to the Palestinians, right or wrong, is due entirely to that fact.

This Plan?

A/C.1/330 of 14 October 1948

A cable communication from the Arabs?! Ha ha. Plan refused!

British and French had created enough Arab Muslim states out of the collapsed Ottoman Empire. This one area, less than 1% of the land given to the Muslims, they decided Would be the future homeland of the Jewish people in their religious and ancestral homeland. Don't like it? Tough! It's been over 70 years now, move on.

 

[Elvis Obama]

Why should they be content? No reason I can think of. As far as accepting it goes, well that runs rather contrary to human nature. The strong will wage war, the weak will engage in terrorism and the completely powerless will just sit down and cry.

Not all peoples are the same. Fundamentally, of course they are, but culture is a different matter. Once we created the modern nation, all the peoples of the world wanted one for themselves. Not everyone was successful. The Germans unified into a nation, and so did the Italians. The Indians struggled to achieve it and partially succeeded. The Arabs tried to do it and were very unsuccessful. The Brits and French and Russians carved them up as they saw fit. Were they content? Of course not. Did they have a choice? No.

The Palestinians did not lose half their country. They failed to get a nation. They refused it. Their reason was not because they were defending their ancestral homeland. It was religious motives, not territorial, that drove them. They still do and that won't change for a very long time. They cannot compromise on Jerusalem. Ever. Israel can.

They failed to get a nation. They refused it.​

You are new here and the first thing you do is regurgitate Israel propaganda.

BTW, welcome to the board.

They accepted? I was under the impression they refused.

These kinds of partitions, India and Pakistan for example, happened during the period when nationalism was the driving force in international politics. Why are the Palestinians a special case? Why not China's annexation of Tibet? Why not a campaign to give America back to the Native Americans?

The world was reshaped during this period. The injustices committed during this period are the worst in human history. There will be no recompense for these tragedies. The lines the world collectively drew during this period were not ideal. Borders never are. These borders represent force. They still do.

It's not irrelevant to assign blame and attempt to take the moral high ground. That is how the modern nations make war. Soft power. The Palestinians got screwed and continue to get screwed. Not terribly, in the scale of things. They got some of their sand taken away, but they got a shiny new nation in exchange. They were too culturally primitive to take it. Too motivated by religion.

There are many in the ME who yearn for modernity. The Arab Spring was a brief period when these voices started to get traction, but they lost it. Why? Failure to control the militaries of these countries? Failure to achieve a broad enough base of support amongst the hoi polloi? Modern nations are not built on sand, they're built on a base of people who buy into the social contract which modern nations provide to their people. The Palestinians don't have that. That's their problem, not Israel.

Jordan was the Palestinian's bestest buddy. They were even thinking about moving in together. Then Jordan got smart, abandoned their religiously motivated nonsense and started building a state. They made peace with Israel, received international aid as a consequence and began to build an economy designed to serve the interests of their people. It's called modernity. The same modernity that Atatürk brought to Turkey.

They accepted? I was under the impression they refused.​

What nation plan did they refuse?

Their own. They were responsible for their nation plan. All they had to do was declare themselves a state. Then they would have been free to write their own constitution.

They refused because they are a bunch of primitive religious zealots. Not all of them, but simply too many of them. Everything Israel has done with regards to the Palestinians, right or wrong, is due entirely to that fact.

This Plan?

A/C.1/330 of 14 October 1948

Yeah, that's what they wanted. India wanted a unified India. They didn't get it. Hussein bin Ali wanted a Pan-Arabia. He didn't get it. No one gets what they want. Awwww. So what? You get what you've got the strength and the friends to get. Why should the Palestinians be treated any differently?

Much more interesting to me is why people like you choose to raise the Palestinians above all the other displaced, disgruntled peoples of the world to the level of "pet cause"? What is it, that they're so reasonable? So modern? So deserving of independence? So likely to make good use of it?