Why are the Palestinians still in refugee camps?

[Loren Pechtel]

(Adwalled)
https://www.csmonitor.com/1992/0526/26191.html

In the early 1970s, Israel initiated what it called the "build your own home" program. A half a dunam of land outside the camps (equal to about an eighth of an acre) was given to Palestinians who then financed the purchase of building materials and, usually with friends, erected a home. Israel provided the infrastructure: sewers, schools, etc. More than 11,000 camp dwellers were resettled into 10 different neighborhoods before the PLO, using intimidation tactics, ended the program.

Who is the cause??

 

[Jayjay]

You think things might have changed a bit since 1992? Though not for the better. Removing people from camps in West Bank and Gaza hardly matters, since they are walled in anyway. The bigger issue is camps outside Israel. UNRWA is subsidising them to perpetuity and there is no incentive for the host countries to resettle the refugees, even if they somehow managed to get around the political hurdles of doing so.

 

[Arctish]

(Adwalled)
https://www.csmonitor.com/1992/0526/26191.html

In the early 1970s, Israel initiated what it called the "build your own home" program. A half a dunam of land outside the camps (equal to about an eighth of an acre) was given to Palestinians who then financed the purchase of building materials and, usually with friends, erected a home. Israel provided the infrastructure: sewers, schools, etc. More than 11,000 camp dwellers were resettled into 10 different neighborhoods before the PLO, using intimidation tactics, ended the program.

Who is the cause??

The Palestinians are still in refugee camps because the Israelis will not allow them to return to their homes and communities inside Israel.

That was the case when the camps were first established during and shortly after Israel's War of Independence, and it has remained the case ever since.

I think the question you're really posing is "Why have attempts to resettle the Palestinian refugees outside of Israel failed?", and the linked article is much too facile to be of any use answering it.

For example, consider this paragraph:

Unlike Israel, which began the process of absorbing refugees at least two decades before its establishment as a state, the Palestinians have had no such experience. Entire infrastructures will have to be built and expertise obtained, almost immediately.

How in the heck did Israel accomplish anything before it existed?

The author perhaps meant to say the Zionist Organisation, the Zionist Congress, and The Jewish Agency for Palestine helped Jewish immigrants settle in Palestine. Glibly stating that Israel had a "process of absorbing refugees" obscures what those organizations actually did to acquire the land and house the new arrivals. And I think neither you nor the author would be willing to suggest the Palestinians emulate the Zionists in that regard.

As Jayjay has pointed out, that article predates the signing of the Oslo Accords. There was hope back then that the Palestinians would have their own State in the West Bank and Gaza where new communities for the refugees might be built. That's not a realistic hope anymore. Neither is the hope that Palestinians will yearn to live in Libya anytime soon.

If you want to discuss why specific plans to resettle the refugees failed, list one or two so we can look at the proposals, who promised to fund it, where the new homes would be located, the political climate at the time, etc.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You think things might have changed a bit since 1992? Though not for the better. Removing people from camps in West Bank and Gaza hardly matters, since they are walled in anyway. The bigger issue is camps outside Israel. UNRWA is subsidising them to perpetuity and there is no incentive for the host countries to resettle the refugees, even if they somehow managed to get around the political hurdles of doing so.

The point is the terrorists were actively trying to keep them in the camps.

The Palestinians are still in refugee camps because the Israelis will not allow them to return to their homes and communities inside Israel.

Of course they won't, they aren't suicidal.

That was the case when the camps were first established during and shortly after Israel's War of Independence, and it has remained the case ever since.

They were offered to be allowed back if they would agree not to attempt to destroy Israel. They refused. Why should Israel allow in people who were seeking to commit treason?

As Jayjay has pointed out, that article predates the signing of the Oslo Accords. There was hope back then that the Palestinians would have their own State in the West Bank and Gaza where new communities for the refugees might be built. That's not a realistic hope anymore. Neither is the hope that Palestinians will yearn to live in Libya anytime soon.

If you want to discuss why specific plans to resettle the refugees failed, list one or two so we can look at the proposals, who promised to fund it, where the new homes would be located, the political climate at the time, etc.

You're being sidetracked by the important point--they were deliberately being kept in bad conditions to use as a weapon against Israel.

And note that my article was from the Christian Science Monitor, not a Jewish source. (And at least back then I found them a highly credible source so long as reality didn't conflict with Christianity. I haven't had much occasion to look over there stuff since my university days, though.)

 

[Arctish]

You think things might have changed a bit since 1992? Though not for the better. Removing people from camps in West Bank and Gaza hardly matters, since they are walled in anyway. The bigger issue is camps outside Israel. UNRWA is subsidising them to perpetuity and there is no incentive for the host countries to resettle the refugees, even if they somehow managed to get around the political hurdles of doing so.

The point is the terrorists were actively trying to keep them in the camps.

The Palestinians are still in refugee camps because the Israelis will not allow them to return to their homes and communities inside Israel.

Of course they won't, they aren't suicidal.

Finally you acknowledge the obvious! The Palestinian refugees are still in those camps because Israelis will not allow them to return to their homes and communities inside Israel.

Of course you justify it by trotting out an anti-Semitic smear worthy of Goebbels, but I'm sure you think doing it to defend Israeli policy makes it okay.

That was the case when the camps were first established during and shortly after Israel's War of Independence, and it has remained the case ever since.

They were offered to be allowed back if they would agree not to attempt to destroy Israel. They refused. Why should Israel allow in people who were seeking to commit treason?

If you are referring to the 100,000 Offer, you already know you are giving a very dishonest account.

We've been discussing this for over a decade, but if you want to go over it again, we can start here. Or if you prefer, we could start with one of the articles I've linked to before, like this one. Or we can pick up where we left off in our earlier discussions via the archives

Anyway, please learn the definition of treason because you keep using that word, and it doesn't mean what you think it means.

As Jayjay has pointed out, that article predates the signing of the Oslo Accords. There was hope back then that the Palestinians would have their own State in the West Bank and Gaza where new communities for the refugees might be built. That's not a realistic hope anymore. Neither is the hope that Palestinians will yearn to live in Libya anytime soon.

If you want to discuss why specific plans to resettle the refugees failed, list one or two so we can look at the proposals, who promised to fund it, where the new homes would be located, the political climate at the time, etc.

You're being sidetracked by the important point--they were deliberately being kept in bad conditions to use as a weapon against Israel.

And note that my article was from the Christian Science Monitor, not a Jewish source. (And at least back then I found them a highly credible source so long as reality didn't conflict with Christianity. I haven't had much occasion to look over there stuff since my university days, though.)

I would like to discuss the Christian Science Monitor report with you, and I would really like to examine the reasons why the resettlement program it described failed. But you'll have to stop bullshitting because if all you're going to do is make sh!t up, discussion is pointless.

Let's start with what the CSM says the program entailed.

In the early 1970s, Israel initiated what it called the "build your own home" program. A half a dunam of land outside the camps (equal to about an eighth of an acre) was given to Palestinians who then financed the purchase of building materials and, usually with friends, erected a home. Israel provided the infrastructure: sewers, schools, etc. More than 11,000 camp dwellers were resettled into 10 different neighborhoods before the PLO, using intimidation tactics, ended the program.

First off, we need to know where this happened. Which refugee camps were involved? Who owned the land where the refugees were being encouraged to build houses? Was it land seized from other Palestinians, or was it land Israel had lawfully acquired? The article says the land was "given to Palestinians". Does this mean that Israel formally recognized Palestinian ownership of parts of Eretz Yisrael? If so, that would have been an enormously important change, especially in the 1970s.

So, first things first. Can you find any other information on this program? I've been looking around but haven't found anything yet.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The point is the terrorists were actively trying to keep them in the camps.



Of course they won't, they aren't suicidal.

Finally you acknowledge the obvious! The Palestinian refugees are still in those camps because Israelis will not allow them to return to their homes and communities inside Israel.

Of course Israel won't--you're asking for Israel to commit suicide. It's amazing how deep in denial the left is about this. You can pretend you didn't expect it but the Jews would be dead.

If you are referring to the 100,000 Offer, you already know you are giving a very dishonest account.

We've been discussing this for over a decade, but if you want to go over it again, we can start here. Or if you prefer, we could start with one of the articles I've linked to before, like this one. Or we can pick up where we left off in our earlier discussions via the archives

Wikipedia is extremely biased about the Palestinians.

Anyway, please learn the definition of treason because you keep using that word, and it doesn't mean what you think it means.

Attempting to aid an enemy to destroy your nation is treason.

I would like to discuss the Christian Science Monitor report with you, and I would really like to examine the reasons why the resettlement program it described failed. But you'll have to stop bullshitting because if all you're going to do is make sh!t up, discussion is pointless.

Let's start with what the CSM says the program entailed.

In the early 1970s, Israel initiated what it called the "build your own home" program. A half a dunam of land outside the camps (equal to about an eighth of an acre) was given to Palestinians who then financed the purchase of building materials and, usually with friends, erected a home. Israel provided the infrastructure: sewers, schools, etc. More than 11,000 camp dwellers were resettled into 10 different neighborhoods before the PLO, using intimidation tactics, ended the program.

First off, we need to know where this happened. Which refugee camps were involved? Who owned the land where the refugees were being encouraged to build houses? Was it land seized from other Palestinians, or was it land Israel had lawfully acquired? The article says the land was "given to Palestinians". Does this mean that Israel formally recognized Palestinian ownership of parts of Eretz Yisrael? If so, that would have been an enormously important change, especially in the 1970s.

So, first things first. Can you find any other information on this program? I've been looking around but haven't found anything yet.

You're avoiding the point--it's irrelevant what the program entailed. What matters is the PLO forced the Palestinians not to accept it.

 

[Jayjay]

The point is the terrorists were actively trying to keep them in the camps.

Sure, Palestinians have had dumbass leadership. In 1970s PLO very likely still entertained idea of returning to Israel, so of course they sabotaged any attempts to permanently settle the refugees or make their lives better. But in the long run this was irrelevant. All Gazans are fucked, whether they are UNRWA recognized refugees or not. Same goes for Palestinians in West Bank, maybe even more so. At least Gazans are not likely to be forcefully removed from their land anymore.

 

[Arctish]

Of course Israel won't--you're asking for Israel to commit suicide. It's amazing how deep in denial the left is about this. You can pretend you didn't expect it but the Jews would be dead.

IOW the reason the Palestinian refugee camps are still full of Palestinian refugees because the Israelis won't let them to return to their homes inside Israel

Now that we both fully acknowledge the point, let's move on.

If you are referring to the 100,000 Offer, you already know you are giving a very dishonest account.

We've been discussing this for over a decade, but if you want to go over it again, we can start here. Or if you prefer, we could start with one of the articles I've linked to before, like this one. Or we can pick up where we left off in our earlier discussions via the archives

Wikipedia is extremely biased about the Palestinians.

What source of information did you use?

Anyway, please learn the definition of treason because you keep using that word, and it doesn't mean what you think it means.

Attempting to aid an enemy to destroy your nation is treason.

It's only treason if you're a citizen.

Are you saying Israel was offering full citizenship to the Palestinian refugees? If you are, that's another example of your dishonesty regarding the 100,000 Offer.

I would like to discuss the Christian Science Monitor report with you, and I would really like to examine the reasons why the resettlement program it described failed. But you'll have to stop bullshitting because if all you're going to do is make sh!t up, discussion is pointless.

Let's start with what the CSM says the program entailed.

In the early 1970s, Israel initiated what it called the "build your own home" program. A half a dunam of land outside the camps (equal to about an eighth of an acre) was given to Palestinians who then financed the purchase of building materials and, usually with friends, erected a home. Israel provided the infrastructure: sewers, schools, etc. More than 11,000 camp dwellers were resettled into 10 different neighborhoods before the PLO, using intimidation tactics, ended the program.

First off, we need to know where this happened. Which refugee camps were involved? Who owned the land where the refugees were being encouraged to build houses? Was it land seized from other Palestinians, or was it land Israel had lawfully acquired? The article says the land was "given to Palestinians". Does this mean that Israel formally recognized Palestinian ownership of parts of Eretz Yisrael? If so, that would have been an enormously important change, especially in the 1970s.

So, first things first. Can you find any other information on this program? I've been looking around but haven't found anything yet.

You're avoiding the point--it's irrelevant what the program entailed. What matters is the PLO forced the Palestinians not to accept it.

It's completely relevant.

Were the Israelis encouraging Palestinians to build illegal settlements in the West Bank?

Was this plan likely to cause trouble between Christian refugees and Palestinian landowners, and vice versa?

Did Israel have genuine legal authority to allocate the land, or was it merely asserting it?

If some Palestinians tacitly accepted Israel's authority to allocate land in the West Bank, could Israel use that to support their claim of ownership of the entire region?

Were there clauses in the contracts that said the resettled refugees were surrendering their Rights in exchange for the house lots?

We need to see the actual program before we can say anything about what was being offered and what was expected in exchange. And we need to evaluate it in context of recent events and the political climate.

The period following the 1967 War was a particularly bloody part of the timeline, with grenade attacks on civilians, car bombings, airline hijackings, and the massacre at the Munich Olympics. There is no doubt those events played a role in how that 'build your own home' plan was developed, what the Israelis hoped to accomplish with it, how it was received by the PLO, and what the Palestinian people thought of it.

ETA:
I still haven't found another source for the story. Wikipedia appears to be paraphrasing the CSM report.

ETA2: I found a somewhat longer version of the CSM article here.

 

[Jayjay]

IOW the reason the Palestinian refugee camps are still full of Palestinian refugees because the Israelis won't let them to return to their homes inside Israel

Fact check: the people who were driven from their homes in 1948 are now mostly dead apart from maybe a few geriatrics. Their children and in-laws who live in the camps have no "homes" in Israel, and you can't "return" somewhere where you've never lived before. And Israel, like any other country, is not obligated to give citizenship or grant entry to random foreigners.

 

[Arctish]

IOW the reason the Palestinian refugee camps are still full of Palestinian refugees because the Israelis won't let them to return to their homes inside Israel

Fact check: the people who were driven from their homes in 1948 are now mostly dead apart from maybe a few geriatrics. Their children and in-laws who live in the camps have no "homes" in Israel, and you can't "return" somewhere where you've never lived before. And Israel, like any other country, is not obligated to give citizenship or grant entry to random foreigners.

That's not how it works under the UN resolutions Israel promised it would aide by when it sought admittance to that organization, or under international law. The children of refugees are refugees themselves unless and until they are either repatriated to the places from which they and their community were driven, or they voluntarily emigrate and become legal residents of other countries.

Anyway, the people in the refugee camps aren't random foreigners. They are the indigenous population of Palestine that Zionists drove out in order to make way for mostly European immigrants and colonists. Israel has allowed the situation to grow and fester because racists and religious bigots in Israel want to make the results of ethnic cleansing permanent.

Perhaps one day the Israelis will succeed in ignoring the situation long enough for it to simply go away, but I doubt it. Unlike the Native Americans whose numbers rapidly dwindled when European colonists forced them off their land and into reservations, the Palestinians have kept pace with the Israelis population-wise.

 

[Jayjay]

IOW the reason the Palestinian refugee camps are still full of Palestinian refugees because the Israelis won't let them to return to their homes inside Israel

Fact check: the people who were driven from their homes in 1948 are now mostly dead apart from maybe a few geriatrics. Their children and in-laws who live in the camps have no "homes" in Israel, and you can't "return" somewhere where you've never lived before. And Israel, like any other country, is not obligated to give citizenship or grant entry to random foreigners.

That's not how it works under the UN resolutions Israel promised it would aide by when it sought admittance to that organization, or under international law. The children of refugees are refugees themselves unless and until they are either repatriated to the places from which they and their community were driven, or they voluntarily emigrate and become legal residents of other countries.

This interpretation of a refugee is unique to Palestinians. In normal parlance and by common sense, refugeeship is not something that's inherited. As for international law, it's more of an international guideline since there is no one to enforce it.

Anyway, the people in the refugee camps aren't random foreigners. They are the indigenous population of Palestine that Zionists drove out in order to make way for mostly European immigrants and colonists. Israel has allowed the situation to grow and fester because racists and religious bigots in Israel want to make the results of ethnic cleansing permanent.

Perhaps one day the Israelis will succeed in ignoring the situation long enough for it to simply go away, but I doubt it. Unlike the Native Americans whose numbers rapidly dwindled when European colonists forced them off their land and into reservations, the Palestinians have kept pace with the Israelis population-wise.

In modern world, warm bodies don't mean as much as they used to. Israel is militarily capable of holding its own, has nuclear weapons, and is ultimately backed up by the US of A. The strategy of trying to have as much children as possible has been tried but it hasn't really achieved anything but increased population density and worse living conditions for Palestinians.

 

[Arctish]

That's not how it works under the UN resolutions Israel promised it would aide by when it sought admittance to that organization, or under international law. The children of refugees are refugees themselves unless and until they are either repatriated to the places from which they and their community were driven, or they voluntarily emigrate and become legal residents of other countries.

This interpretation of a refugee is unique to Palestinians. In normal parlance and by common sense, refugeeship is not something that's inherited. As for international law, it's more of an international guideline since there is no one to enforce it.

Refugeeship isn't inherited, but you can be born into it. I'm pretty sure the children born to refugees living in refugee camps are considered refugees themselves. And if their families can't go home and their host country won't grant them citizenship, they might wind up being refugees their entire lives.

Anyway, the people in the refugee camps aren't random foreigners. They are the indigenous population of Palestine that Zionists drove out in order to make way for mostly European immigrants and colonists. Israel has allowed the situation to grow and fester because racists and religious bigots in Israel want to make the results of ethnic cleansing permanent.

Perhaps one day the Israelis will succeed in ignoring the situation long enough for it to simply go away, but I doubt it. Unlike the Native Americans whose numbers rapidly dwindled when European colonists forced them off their land and into reservations, the Palestinians have kept pace with the Israelis population-wise.

In modern world, warm bodies don't mean as much as they used to. Israel is militarily capable of holding its own, has nuclear weapons, and is ultimately backed up by the US of A. The strategy of trying to have as much children as possible has been tried but it hasn't really achieved anything but increased population density and worse living conditions for Palestinians.

I wasn't thinking of warm bodies as in military strength. I was thinking of a problem that just keeps getting bigger the longer you ignore it. Eventually it gets to the point where you can't ignore it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The point is the terrorists were actively trying to keep them in the camps.

Sure, Palestinians have had dumbass leadership. In 1970s PLO very likely still entertained idea of returning to Israel, so of course they sabotaged any attempts to permanently settle the refugees or make their lives better. But in the long run this was irrelevant. All Gazans are fucked, whether they are UNRWA recognized refugees or not. Same goes for Palestinians in West Bank, maybe even more so. At least Gazans are not likely to be forcefully removed from their land anymore.

The idea of returning to Israel is still the core objective of their leadership.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

IOW the reason the Palestinian refugee camps are still full of Palestinian refugees because the Israelis won't let them to return to their homes inside Israel

Now that we both fully acknowledge the point, let's move on.

Ignoring the fact that returning to Israel isn't a viable solution unless you think the Holocaust was a good idea that should be continued.

Wikipedia is extremely biased about the Palestinians.

What source of information did you use?

Irrelevant. Simple example: Years ago I noticed one missing hyperlink--making it harder to see what the Palestinian position really was. I added it--about as non-controversial an update as you can imagine. It was promptly reverted--that information was supposed to be hidden.

Besides, the very nature of Wikipedia means it's going to be seriously biased here. It's basically a vote as to what the truth is.

Anyway, please learn the definition of treason because you keep using that word, and it doesn't mean what you think it means.

Attempting to aid an enemy to destroy your nation is treason.

It's only treason if you're a citizen.

Are you saying Israel was offering full citizenship to the Palestinian refugees? If you are, that's another example of your dishonesty regarding the 100,000 Offer.

They were before the war. The ones that didn't leave are citizens now.

You're avoiding the point--it's irrelevant what the program entailed. What matters is the PLO forced the Palestinians not to accept it.

It's completely relevant.

Were the Israelis encouraging Palestinians to build illegal settlements in the West Bank?

Was this plan likely to cause trouble between Christian refugees and Palestinian landowners, and vice versa?

Did Israel have genuine legal authority to allocate the land, or was it merely asserting it?

If any of your red herrings were relevant you would expect the article to have said so. The problem was simply one of blocking it by illegal means.

 

[Jayjay]

The point is the terrorists were actively trying to keep them in the camps.

Sure, Palestinians have had dumbass leadership. In 1970s PLO very likely still entertained idea of returning to Israel, so of course they sabotaged any attempts to permanently settle the refugees or make their lives better. But in the long run this was irrelevant. All Gazans are fucked, whether they are UNRWA recognized refugees or not. Same goes for Palestinians in West Bank, maybe even more so. At least Gazans are not likely to be forcefully removed from their land anymore.

The idea of returning to Israel is still the core objective of their leadership.

Not evidenced by their actions. They have to do lip service to the right of return to appear steadfast, but in reality the Palestinian leadership is more about their own survival than practical goals. And regardless, there is no moral basis to punish Palestinians for the lack of quality of their leaders.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The idea of returning to Israel is still the core objective of their leadership.

Not evidenced by their actions. They have to do lip service to the right of return to appear steadfast, but in reality the Palestinian leadership is more about their own survival than practical goals. And regardless, there is no moral basis to punish Palestinians for the lack of quality of their leaders.

Lip service? Then why all the propaganda aimed at their own people about it?

 

[Arctish]

IOW the reason the Palestinian refugee camps are still full of Palestinian refugees because the Israelis won't let them to return to their homes inside Israel

Now that we both fully acknowledge the point, let's move on.

Ignoring the fact that returning to Israel isn't a viable solution unless you think the Holocaust was a good idea that should be continued.

Your thread title asks "Why are the Palestinians still in refugee camps?". The answer is, because racists and religious bigots won't allow them to return to their homes and communities inside Israel. You and I both agree that answer is accurate and truthful. You don't need to keep providing examples of the racism and religious bigotry. I'm sure everyone here knows you're pro-segregation, and why.

What source of information did you use?

Irrelevant. Simple example: Years ago I noticed one missing hyperlink--making it harder to see what the Palestinian position really was. I added it--about as non-controversial an update as you can imagine. It was promptly reverted--that information was supposed to be hidden.

Besides, the very nature of Wikipedia means it's going to be seriously biased here. It's basically a vote as to what the truth is.

Asking what you are using as a source isn't irrelevant, it's part of a normal conversation on a discussion board.

Anyway, please learn the definition of treason because you keep using that word, and it doesn't mean what you think it means.

Attempting to aid an enemy to destroy your nation is treason.

It's only treason if you're a citizen.

Are you saying Israel was offering full citizenship to the Palestinian refugees? If you are, that's another example of your dishonesty regarding the 100,000 Offer.

They were before the war. The ones that didn't leave are citizens now.

There's no fracking way the Palestinians were citizens of Israel "before the war" because Israel didn't exist back then.

Sheesh, Loren, for all your love of Israel you sure don't seem to know much about it.

You're avoiding the point--it's irrelevant what the program entailed. What matters is the PLO forced the Palestinians not to accept it.

It's completely relevant.

Were the Israelis encouraging Palestinians to build illegal settlements in the West Bank?

Was this plan likely to cause trouble between Christian refugees and Palestinian landowners, and vice versa?

Did Israel have genuine legal authority to allocate the land, or was it merely asserting it?

If any of your red herrings were relevant you would expect the article to have said so. The problem was simply one of blocking it by illegal means.

What makes you think any of my questions are red herrings? If you're actually interested in this story of a failed resettlement program, then the question "Were the Israelis encouraging Palestinians to build illegal settlements in the West Bank? " is pertinent, especially since we know that Israel was enabling illegal Israeli settlements and the PLO was trying to force them to stop. Was this more of the same, or not?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Your thread title asks "Why are the Palestinians still in refugee camps?". The answer is, because racists and religious bigots won't allow them to return to their homes and communities inside Israel. You and I both agree that answer is accurate and truthful. You don't need to keep providing examples of the racism and religious bigotry. I'm sure everyone here knows you're pro-segregation, and why.

I note that you aren't addressing the issue of what happens if you get what you want. What happens is genocide. You apparently are either totally in denial or you want to see another Holocaust. Which is it?

Asking what you are using as a source isn't irrelevant, it's part of a normal conversation on a discussion board.

But it's irrelevant in regards to an assertion that a source is biased. Wikipedia is to a large degree a vote on the truth--works fine on non-controversial topics, works horribly on controversial ones.

Anyway, please learn the definition of treason because you keep using that word, and it doesn't mean what you think it means.

Attempting to aid an enemy to destroy your nation is treason.

It's only treason if you're a citizen.

Are you saying Israel was offering full citizenship to the Palestinian refugees? If you are, that's another example of your dishonesty regarding the 100,000 Offer.

They were before the war. The ones that didn't leave are citizens now.

There's no fracking way the Palestinians were citizens of Israel "before the war" because Israel didn't exist back then.

The citizenship went with the land.

Sheesh, Loren, for all your love of Israel you sure don't seem to know much about it.

I'm not the one that keeps making claims that don't pass the laugh test.

You're avoiding the point--it's irrelevant what the program entailed. What matters is the PLO forced the Palestinians not to accept it.

It's completely relevant.

Were the Israelis encouraging Palestinians to build illegal settlements in the West Bank?

Was this plan likely to cause trouble between Christian refugees and Palestinian landowners, and vice versa?

Did Israel have genuine legal authority to allocate the land, or was it merely asserting it?

If any of your red herrings were relevant you would expect the article to have said so. The problem was simply one of blocking it by illegal means.

What makes you think any of my questions are red herrings? If you're actually interested in this story of a failed resettlement program, then the question "Were the Israelis encouraging Palestinians to build illegal settlements in the West Bank? " is pertinent, especially since we know that Israel was enabling illegal Israeli settlements and the PLO was trying to force them to stop. Was this more of the same, or not?

They're red herrings because you're throwing out what-ifs that are contrary to the stated facts in order to distract from the reality: The refugee camps exist because the terrorists want them to exist.

 

[laughing dog]

I note that you aren't addressing the issue of what happens if you get what you want. What happens is genocide. You apparently are either totally in denial or you want to see another Holocaust. Which is it?



But it's irrelevant in regards to an assertion that a source is biased. Wikipedia is to a large degree a vote on the truth--works fine on non-controversial topics, works horribly on controversial ones.

Anyway, please learn the definition of treason because you keep using that word, and it doesn't mean what you think it means.

Attempting to aid an enemy to destroy your nation is treason.

It's only treason if you're a citizen.

Are you saying Israel was offering full citizenship to the Palestinian refugees? If you are, that's another example of your dishonesty regarding the 100,000 Offer.

They were before the war. The ones that didn't leave are citizens now.

There's no fracking way the Palestinians were citizens of Israel "before the war" because Israel didn't exist back then.

The citizenship went with the land.

Sheesh, Loren, for all your love of Israel you sure don't seem to know much about it.

I'm not the one that keeps making claims that don't pass the laugh test.

You're avoiding the point--it's irrelevant what the program entailed. What matters is the PLO forced the Palestinians not to accept it.

It's completely relevant.

Were the Israelis encouraging Palestinians to build illegal settlements in the West Bank?

Was this plan likely to cause trouble between Christian refugees and Palestinian landowners, and vice versa?

Did Israel have genuine legal authority to allocate the land, or was it merely asserting it?

If any of your red herrings were relevant you would expect the article to have said so. The problem was simply one of blocking it by illegal means.

What makes you think any of my questions are red herrings? If you're actually interested in this story of a failed resettlement program, then the question "Were the Israelis encouraging Palestinians to build illegal settlements in the West Bank? " is pertinent, especially since we know that Israel was enabling illegal Israeli settlements and the PLO was trying to force them to stop. Was this more of the same, or not?

They're red herrings because you're throwing out what-ifs that are contrary to the stated facts in order to distract from the reality: The refugee camps exist because the terrorists want them to exist.

Your insight into the terrorist mindset is fascinating. But to which terrorists do you refer - Palestinian or Israeli?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I note that you aren't addressing the issue of what happens if you get what you want. What happens is genocide. You apparently are either totally in denial or you want to see another Holocaust. Which is it?



But it's irrelevant in regards to an assertion that a source is biased. Wikipedia is to a large degree a vote on the truth--works fine on non-controversial topics, works horribly on controversial ones.

Anyway, please learn the definition of treason because you keep using that word, and it doesn't mean what you think it means.

Attempting to aid an enemy to destroy your nation is treason.

It's only treason if you're a citizen.

Are you saying Israel was offering full citizenship to the Palestinian refugees? If you are, that's another example of your dishonesty regarding the 100,000 Offer.

They were before the war. The ones that didn't leave are citizens now.

There's no fracking way the Palestinians were citizens of Israel "before the war" because Israel didn't exist back then.

The citizenship went with the land.

Sheesh, Loren, for all your love of Israel you sure don't seem to know much about it.

I'm not the one that keeps making claims that don't pass the laugh test.

You're avoiding the point--it's irrelevant what the program entailed. What matters is the PLO forced the Palestinians not to accept it.

It's completely relevant.

Were the Israelis encouraging Palestinians to build illegal settlements in the West Bank?

Was this plan likely to cause trouble between Christian refugees and Palestinian landowners, and vice versa?

Did Israel have genuine legal authority to allocate the land, or was it merely asserting it?

If any of your red herrings were relevant you would expect the article to have said so. The problem was simply one of blocking it by illegal means.

What makes you think any of my questions are red herrings? If you're actually interested in this story of a failed resettlement program, then the question "Were the Israelis encouraging Palestinians to build illegal settlements in the West Bank? " is pertinent, especially since we know that Israel was enabling illegal Israeli settlements and the PLO was trying to force them to stop. Was this more of the same, or not?

They're red herrings because you're throwing out what-ifs that are contrary to the stated facts in order to distract from the reality: The refugee camps exist because the terrorists want them to exist.

Your insight into the terrorist mindset is fascinating. But to which terrorists do you refer - Palestinian or Israeli?

As you perfectly well know the answer to that I can only figure this is an attempt to derail.