Netanyahu has lost his fucking mind

[Jayjay]

The Palestinians wanted a united Palestine under local control in which they were full citizens. They did not demand all Jews leave; they wanted the Zionists to stop trying to create a Jewish State in a land where Jews were only 10% of the population before the Zionists arrived from Europe, and were still only about 34% of the population after tens of thousands emigrated to Palestine within a 20 year span.

Why do you find it so shocking that Palestinians resented Zionists colonizing their land and colluding to drive them out?

1) There was no driving-out of the Palestinians. Look at the ones that stayed--full citizens of Israel.

2) What the Palestinians did not want is a Jewish government in land considered conquered by Islam. That's what's truly driving this conflict--Islam lost ground. Not that people lost ground.

Except for the 700,000 or so who did. It's riduclous tosay they weren't driven out just because those who stayed got a better deal. Of course, Israel was able to be magnanimous to a manageable minority that could be controlled, and that's also why the refugees could not be allowed to return. It would have wrecked the demographics and made Jews a minority again.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Of course they can agree. The right of return is actually quite negotiable, especially since the body that determines who gets to return--and when and how and in what form thar return is carried out--would actually be the Israeli judicial system. We BOTH know the Israeli courts are not going to give 3 million Palestinians carte blanche to just move into Israel and start homesteading in the middle of Israeli towns. A refugee looking to exercise that right is probably going to have to go through a long and complicated legal process that more likely than not ends with his getting some form of financial compensation.

The Palestinian charter specifically prohibits any negotiation on the right of return--it's a capital offense to give an inch on it. It's also a capital offense to try to change that measure.

The left routinely claims the right of return can be negotiated--but it can't. Why can't you see it's deliberately set up to ensure there can't be peace?

Israel refuses to ADDRESS the right of return, however, for legal reasons: doing so exposes them to liability if it comes to light that their government was in some way responsible for expelling those refugees in the first place.

Of course it doesn't--they know it's meaningless to talk about, why bother?

The controls would have been phased out in time if the Palestinians behaved.

When, exactly, would that have occurred? Because Israel never set a timetable for that or, for that matter, actually agreed to DO it.

The Palestinians walked out rather than negotiate such things.

All of these things would have come in time if they were peaceful.

We're talking about the West Bank, not the Gaza Strip. Palestinians on the West Bank generally ARE peaceful and suspended organized resistance after the Second Intafada. Random violence between civilians -- also known as "crimes" -- does not change this fact.

And while that really was the case Israel was easing up on the restrictions. Peaceful coexistence is unacceptable to the Islamists, the West Bank got less cooperative. Now they've started that stabbing thing to drive up the tensions.

What's far more important is that the Israeli government has explicitly stated they do not want to life the occupation -- EVER. They do not want to give up control, they do not want the Palestinians to have their own state, they don't even want the Palestinians to still be living in the West Bank. They want that land, and they want the people who live there to disappear.

They do not want to end the occupation so long as the Palestinians choose the path of war. That's quite reasonable.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

1) There was no driving-out of the Palestinians. Look at the ones that stayed--full citizens of Israel.

Sorry, Loren, but you don't get to pretend to be ignorant anymore. We both know that from the earliest days of Zionism, the intention of Zionists was to create a viable State with a Jewish majority, and that the realization this could only come about through driving out the resident non-Jewish population came shortly thereafter. We both know you've read excerpts from the writings and speeches of Ben Gurion, Sharett, Dayan, Meir, Eshkol, Begin, and other prominent Israelis making this point throughout the 1930s and 1940s. We both know you are aware of the plan to ship Palestinians to Iraq that was peddled by Zionists in Europe and America. We both know that Plan Dalet, a campaign to ethnically cleanse areas Zionists wanted for their soon to be formed Jewish State, was carefully planned and executed before Israel came into being.

They had a Jewish majority at the time of creation, there was no need to drive anyone out.

And we both know the forced exile of the non-jews continued into the 1950s until Israel was forced to stop making more refugees, which is why there are still Palestinians in Israel. Had they been allowed to carry on, the Israelis would have finished their work of cleansing the Jewish State of the remnant non-Jewish population by the 1960s.

[Citation needed]

2) What the Palestinians did not want is a Jewish government in land considered conquered by Islam. That's what's truly driving this conflict--Islam lost ground. Not that people lost ground.

Wrong. Palestinians were pretty secular in their concept of government, and they didn't need to bolster their claim to Palestine by bringing religion into it.

But those driving the war did. Look at the page I linked a while back--specifically threatening violence against all the Jews in Arab areas if Israel was formed. That's clearly religious.

The Palestinians objected to the formation of a state in their homeland in which they would not be equal citizens and full participants their government. They did not want to see a state biased against them in power over them. That's not only reasonable, it's perfectly understandable. So why do you and angelo act so shocked that the Palestinians felt that way?


They wanted to be full citizens in their own country.

They didn't have a country before--it was simply part of Transjordan. Transjordan got split into Jordan, Israel and Palestine--but Palestine immediately got annexed by Jordan and Egypt so the Palestinians couldn't have a state.

- - - Updated - - -

Of course not, the "right of return" is a poison pill intended to ensure no peace agreement can be reached. Both sides know that Israel can't agree.



The controls would have been phased out in time if the Palestinians behaved. That's irrelevant because they have no intention of behaving.

There was no 90% of West Bank aquifers and municipal wells free of Israeli control.

Of course not--because there is no "West Bank" aquifer. It's a shared aquifer, they need to cooperate on it's use to avoid destroying it. (It will replenish itself even if over-pumped. It's in both sides interest that this not happen as the extra replenishment comes from the ocean.)

There was no 90% of Gaza's borders controlled by the Gazans, or 90% of the West Bank borders controlled by the Palestinians in the West Bank; there was no 90% of Palestinian coastal waters in which Palestinians could fish, sail, transport cargo, and develop resources without Israeli interference, or 90% of tax revenues collected without going through Israeli hands, or 90% recognition of the right of Palestinians to live in Palestine.

All of these things would have come in time if they were peaceful.

So you agree with the there was no offer that would have met 90% of the Palestinian demands.

Tell that to angelo, please. He keeps insisting there was.

90% of feasible demands. 0% of the impossible demands.

- - - Updated - - -

Of course not, the "right of return" is a poison pill intended to ensure no peace agreement can be reached. Both sides know that Israel can't agree...

It's only a problem if one doesn't believe in democracy and wants to maintain a Jewish majority through oppression.

Since the Palestinians have made it very clear they intend at a minimum extirpation it's not acceptable.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

1) There was no driving-out of the Palestinians. Look at the ones that stayed--full citizens of Israel.

2) What the Palestinians did not want is a Jewish government in land considered conquered by Islam. That's what's truly driving this conflict--Islam lost ground. Not that people lost ground.

Except for the 700,000 or so who did. It's riduclous tosay they weren't driven out just because those who stayed got a better deal. Of course, Israel was able to be magnanimous to a manageable minority that could be controlled, and that's also why the refugees could not be allowed to return. It would have wrecked the demographics and made Jews a minority again.

The fact that those who stayed got a better deal is not evidence they were driven out.

Rather, they left of their own accord in advance of the Arab invasion. They expected to return victorious and take everything the Jews had. Oops, they backed the wrong horse in the war. They they doubled down by refusing to renounce violence.

Why in the world should Israel allow back in those who had sided with the enemy in time of war and wouldn't agree to peace?

 

[angelo]

The original mandate was never implemented due to it being rejected by both sides. The Palestinians didn't want Palestine to be divided or to be excluded from having a say in their government. They refused to accept a state in which they would not be full and equal citizens. The Zionists wanted more than their proposed allotment, so they launched Plan Dalet among other campaigns to drive out the non-Jews from the areas they wanted to control, and expanded their portion by force.

In all previous wars started by the Arabs, Israel took and kept some territory. They returned to Egypt the whole of the Sinai peninsula in exchange for a peace treaty. Apologists that demand Israel go back to the 67 borders is no longer feasible because of security concerns, plus it will not assure them peace.

Nothing assures peace, not even genocide.

I don't believe Israel will withdraw its citizens to the Israel side of the 1967 borders, or give up control of the borders, airspace, aquifers, or natural gas deposits in the Occupied Territories. I think the end result of this conflict is going to be a one state solution, and the only question is how long it will take Israel to recognize the human rights of non-Jews under its rule.

Recognizing the right of the Palestinian people to live in Palestine is a necessary first step. I'm sure it sticks in the craw of bigots and chauvinists like Netanyahu, but IMO the sooner its done, the better.

Arabs will accept gifts, but not return any!

What gifts? You just said the Egyptians got the Sinai back as part of a peace deal. It was a trade.

No, they demanded the whole area from the Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea. They demanded the all the Jews out.

The Palestinians wanted a united Palestine under local control in which they were full citizens. They did not demand all Jews leave; they wanted the Zionists to stop trying to create a Jewish State in a land where Jews were only 10% of the population before the Zionists arrived from Europe, and were still only about 34% of the population after tens of thousands emigrated to Palestine within a 20 year span.

Why do you find it so shocking that Palestinians resented Zionists colonizing their land and colluding to drive them out?

The Jews had to accept being enslaved to Arabs could one of the reasons!

 

[angelo]

Of course not, the "right of return" is a poison pill intended to ensure no peace agreement can be reached. Both sides know that Israel can't agree...

It's only a problem if one doesn't believe in democracy and wants to maintain a Jewish majority through oppression.

There's a problem there you're ignoring. There were approx 500.000 [ over estimation ] Palestinians who left because Arab leaders told them it was just a temporary action and that once Israel was pushed into the sea, they could return.
Now there's millions of them that demand a right of return. We're it to happen, it would be the end of the Jewish State.
No government on the planet would-be expected to commit suicide in such situation.

 

[untermensche]

It's only a problem if one doesn't believe in democracy and wants to maintain a Jewish majority through oppression.

Since the Palestinians have made it very clear they intend at a minimum extirpation it's not acceptable.

Yes because Israel dictates all terms.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Since the Palestinians have made it very clear they intend at a minimum extirpation it's not acceptable.

Yes because Israel dictates all terms.

So you think it's acceptable to expect a nation to agree to commit suicide?

 

[Jayjay]

Sorry, Loren, but you don't get to pretend to be ignorant anymore. We both know that from the earliest days of Zionism, the intention of Zionists was to create a viable State with a Jewish majority, and that the realization this could only come about through driving out the resident non-Jewish population came shortly thereafter. We both know you've read excerpts from the writings and speeches of Ben Gurion, Sharett, Dayan, Meir, Eshkol, Begin, and other prominent Israelis making this point throughout the 1930s and 1940s. We both know you are aware of the plan to ship Palestinians to Iraq that was peddled by Zionists in Europe and America. We both know that Plan Dalet, a campaign to ethnically cleanse areas Zionists wanted for their soon to be formed Jewish State, was carefully planned and executed before Israel came into being.

They had a Jewish majority at the time of creation, there was no need to drive anyone out.

This is false. The population of Israel in 1948 was only 873 thousand, of which 716 thousand were Jews. Had there not been ethnic cleansing of 700,000 Arabs, they Jews would have been a minority.

 

[Jayjay]

Yes because Israel dictates all terms.

So you think it's acceptable to expect a nation to agree to commit suicide?

No, and that's why it's not unexpected for Palestinians to reject the offers made so far.

 

[untermensche]

Yes because Israel dictates all terms.

So you think it's acceptable to expect a nation to agree to commit suicide?

Not having a Jewish majority is not suicide.

Maintaining a Jewish majority through oppression is not democracy.

 

[bilby]

So you think it's acceptable to expect a nation to agree to commit suicide?

Not having a Jewish majority is not suicide.

Maintaining a Jewish majority through oppression is not democracy.

Nations are not the kind of entity that is alive, so they cannot 'commit suicide' at all - it's a category error.

 

[untermensche]

As long as the US has any part in the process no progress will occur.

Israel has to feel the wrath of the world for it's decades of continual crimes before it will stop.

The US protects it from that. It is the only thing in the world protecting Israel from that.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

The Palestinian charter...

The what?

specifically prohibits any negotiation on the right of return--it's a capital offense to give an inch on it.

The Palestinian Authority indicates it is an act of treason to knowingly act in a manner contrary to the Palestinian right of return. "Negotiation" does not fit that description, which is probably why Mahmoud Abbas repeatedly attempts to discuss it in peace deals.

Again and again we have pointed out that it is Israel, NOT the PLO, that refuses to negotiate the right of return. Israel does not recognize that right and have attempted to make the waiver of that right a precondition to any long-term peace deal. Abbas, as you (almost correctly) point out is bound by law not to waive that right, even if he wanted to, which he doesn't.

The left routinely claims the right of return can be negotiated--but it can't.

Of course it can. Israel simply refuses to do so.

The Palestinians walked out rather than negotiate such things.

Bullshit

And while that really was the case Israel was easing up on the restrictions.

You're backpedaling.

The Palestinians do not control the borders of the West Bank, nor directly control the West Bank's internal security.

The Palestinian Authority was not allowed to directly collect tax revenues collected without going through Israeli hands

The Palestinian Authority was not allowed to seek recognition of the right of Palestinians to live in Palestine

NONE of that "came to pass" despite the fact that the West Bank has been relatively peaceful -- more so, in fact, than at any time in the latter half of the 20th century.

So once again you're simply moving the goalposts, making the Palestinians chase ever more elusive concessionary targets before they can expect to have any of their most basic rights -- let alone national ambitions -- respected by Israel. Which is fine, because Israel has done the exact same thing and continues to do so today. They have negotiated in bad faith from the beginning, and their current prime minister has gone ON RECORD saying that he does not seek the creation of a Palestinian state and wants Israel to maintain control of the West Bank indefinitely.

They do not want to end the occupation so long as the Palestinians choose the path of war. That's quite reasonable.

It's also not what they've said. They do not want to end the occupation... period. Whether the Palestinians choose the war path or not is irrelevant to this calculation. The West Bank being peaceful simply makes the occupation EASIER, so why would they choose to end it doing so doesn't cost them anything?

The Nationalist calculation (put forward by the PFLP and the PLO/Fatah, differing substantially from the Islamist one) was that Israel would NOT end the occupation while they could still afford to continue it, therefore freedom could only be obtained by making the occupation too costly for them to bear. The international community worked hard to convince the Palestinian Authority that Israel WOULD end the occupation -- or rather, would be MADE to end the occupation -- if the Palestinians accepted certain preconditions outlined in third-party deals. Namely, that they would renounce violence, reject terrorism as a legitimate tactic, and recognize Israel as a legitimate government. Abbas did all of this and more, and now it is a question of whether the U.N. will make good on its promise to pull Israel's fist out of his ass.

You need to consider that the Palestinians have conceded everything they can afford to in this conflict and have gotten NOTHING in return. If you don't give people the option to solve their problems peacefully, then you should expect them to resort to violence. Israel expects this, because they know good and damn well they haven't given the Palestinians a viable choice; the settlements continue to expand, the repression continues, control of the border continues, economic and political isolation continues. They KNOW they're negotiating in bad faith, and they know it's only a matter of time before the Palestinians stop pretending not to notice.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

They had a Jewish majority at the time of creation, there was no need to drive anyone out.

This is false. The population of Israel in 1948 was only 873 thousand, of which 716 thousand were Jews. Had there not been ethnic cleansing of 700,000 Arabs, they Jews would have been a minority.

You're forgetting the borders moved because of the Arab attack.

- - - Updated - - -

So you think it's acceptable to expect a nation to agree to commit suicide?

No, and that's why it's not unexpected for Palestinians to reject the offers made so far.

Nobody's asking the Palestinians to commit suicide.

Demanding the right of return is asking for Israel to commit suicide.

- - - Updated - - -

The what?

specifically prohibits any negotiation on the right of return--it's a capital offense to give an inch on it.

The Palestinian Authority indicates it is an act of treason to knowingly act in a manner contrary to the Palestinian right of return. "Negotiation" does not fit that description, which is probably why Mahmoud Abbas repeatedly attempts to discuss it in peace deals.

"Negotiation" as in accepting anything less than it's full implementation is what I was referring to.

Sure they can demand it in the talks but that's meaningless. They can't give ground to the point that Israel could accept it.

 

[Arctish]

This is false. The population of Israel in 1948 was only 873 thousand, of which 716 thousand were Jews. Had there not been ethnic cleansing of 700,000 Arabs, they Jews would have been a minority.

You're forgetting the borders moved because of the Arab attack.

What border? What Arab attack? Are you talking about what happened after the founding of the State of Israel? The massacres and ethnic cleansing had been underway for months before the establishment of the State of Israel was announced.

There were no borders inside Palestine before Israel came into being. It was all just Palestine.

So you think it's acceptable to expect a nation to agree to commit suicide?

No, and that's why it's not unexpected for Palestinians to reject the offers made so far.

Nobody's asking the Palestinians to commit suicide.

Demanding the right of return is asking for Israel to commit suicide.

No, it's demanding that Israel acknowledge the right of Palestinians to live in Palestine. It's demanding that Israel respect the human rights of non-jews. It's demanding that Israel respect the UN conventions it pledged it would respect when it joined the UN.

There is no requirement that Israel absorb all the refugees and their descendants all at once. That's just hysterical strawman stuffing. The current proposal is for Israel to allow a token number of refugees to return, and the Arab nations will provide the money for a monetary settlement with all the rest. But Israeli politicians can't bring themselves to accept this almost cost-free solution because it requires Israel to admit that non-jews have a right to live in Palestine aka Judea and Samaria aka Greater Israel. Netanyahu and his supporters don't believe Palestinians have any such right, and among those Israeli politicians who do, there's been very little will to stand up for them since Rabin was murdered (twenty years ago tomorrow).

 

[angelo]

Who is to decide which "refugees" out of the claimed millions get a right of return?

 

[Arctish]

Who is to decide which "refugees" out of the claimed millions get a right of return?

Israel is a member of the United Nations, and Palestine now has nonmember observer status there, so the UN Refugee Agency would be the appropriate organization to adjudicate that decision, if it comes to that.

 

[angelo]

Who is to decide which "refugees" out of the claimed millions get a right of return?

Israel is a member of the United Nations, and Palestine now has nonmember observer status there, so the UN Refugee Agency would be the appropriate organization to adjudicate that decision, if it comes to that.

I wouldn't let the UN decide what type of tea to serve.

 

[Arctish]

Israel is a member of the United Nations, and Palestine now has nonmember observer status there, so the UN Refugee Agency would be the appropriate organization to adjudicate that decision, if it comes to that.

I wouldn't let the UN decide what type of tea to serve.

So? You asked who decided which refugees have a right of return.

Israel, as a member state of the United Nations, has pledged to uphold that organization's conventions, including the ones regarding refugees. Palestine, in its quest to become a full member, has done the same. So the answer to your question is: the UN Refugee Agency.

Whether you, Netanyahu, or Zionists in general want the UN to decide the issue is another matter.