What should Israel do?

[untermensche]

Yet, Israel made peace with King of Jordan, but kept oppressing Palestinians who had nothing to do with starting the war.

Sure, Israel can continue a military occupation until there are negotiations. But it cannot unilaterally annex land or oppress the civilian population that it occupies; annexation and changing borders can only happen as result of negotiation*. As for blaming Palestinians for refusing to negotiate, there is no amount of "negotiation" that would convince Israel give up East Jerusalem either.

(* Only exception in my opinion, though not recognized by international law, is if the annexation does not entail population transfers and all the people living or making their livelihood in the annexed land get full and equal citizenship rights. That's why nobody here is complaining about Golan Heights.)

More like Jordan made peace with Israel.

Everybody who has actually been willing to make peace with Israel without loading it down with impossible conditions has made peace with them.

Nobody else has land Israel wants.

 

[Arctish]

You said the settlements "*USED* to provide some protection for Israel by acting as a lightning rod for the terrorists". Now you're saying it wasn't actually a human shield tactic but rather "those who stick their necks out are more likely to be the target." So the settlements are bullet-magnets and bomb attractors, and Israel is okay with that. More than okay, in fact. Israel heavily subsidized the building of bullet-magnet bomb attracting housing, and encourages Jews to raise their families there.

Human shield tactics require an intent to shield--and there was no such intent. The existence of settlers does nothing to stop the terrorists from attacking, there is no shielding.

That's still pretty evil, you know. If Israel knows the settlements are going to attract terrorism it has a duty to relocate its civilians to safer housing (preferably legal housing inside Israel), not entice even more Jews to go be lightning rods. And it has an even greater duty to ensure that anyone foolish or zealous enough to volunteer to be a lightning rod doesn't put their children in danger. If fully informed, consenting adults want to go trolling for terrorists, that's one thing, but taking their kids along shouldn't be allowed.

No, because the settlers do not cause any more attacks no matter what you might think. In fact, there is a slight safety improvement--the more spread out the population the fewer people in any one spot to be hit by a single attack.

We got off onto this side track when I said my realization that the settlements had nothing to do with keeping Jews safe caused me to rethink my fundamental assumptions about Zionism. You jumped in with a claim that the settlements used to be lightning rods. Now it looks as though you are backing off from any implication that the effect was intentional, which brings us right back to my original point: the settlements had nothing to do with keeping Jews safe, and once I realized that I reconsidered what I had assumed Zionism was all about. If Zionism wasn't about keeping Jews safe, then I was left to wonder what possible justification there could be for displacing Palestinians to make way for them. I couldn't find any justification that was in keeping with my moral beliefs and upbringing, which is why I stopped supporting Zionism.

You can start with the polls you have linked to in other threads.

So you admit you've seen them--how about noting the detail of them planning to continue the war even if they get a peace treaty.

*sigh*

No Loren, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying if you think there's data that supports your assertions, by all means, look for it!

Those polls you posted reveal that Palestinians overwhelmingly favor fair dealings. I am hoping that this time, when you looked at them you might actually notice what the respondents are saying.

Are you kidding, Loren? Pilots have been accurately reporting ship size and configurations since WWI. Air Forces have been installing cameras in planes doing reconnaissance since WWII. Those IDF pilots flew low enough to see the American sailors waving at them, and they waved back. They saw the flag, the uniforms, the radar dish and antennae arrays, the size of the deck, and the 30 foot tall numbers painted on the Liberty's side. But I guess you're going with the Jackie Mason defense: "We're Jews, we live in a desert. What do we know from boats?"

Size mistakes were common in the era before radar would tell you how big it was.

We got off onto this side track when I said the day I found out about the USS Liberty was the day I stopped trusting what my government had to say about how great a friend we had in Israel. You jumped in with a coakamamie story about the IDF thinking the Liberty was an Egyptian ship posing as an American one, which is utterly absurd considering the Egyptians had nothing like the Liberty in their fleet, the Israelis knew the Liberty's position (they'd complained about it and asked the US to move the vessel early that same day), and the IDF overflew the ship several times before the attack began. Also, at least one of the IDF pilots reported the ship was American when he refused to attack, and several Israeli patrol boats got practically alongside her when they strafed her decks and shot up her life boats with machine gun fire.

You can bullshit all you like about how hard it is to tell a ship's size (and it is bullshit - it isn't that hard, especially when you can see the sailors and equipment on deck, and you have military training in reconnaissance before you are sent out to reconnoiter). Those IDF pilots had enough training and skill to drop napalm on the Liberty's deck, but you think they had no understanding of how big their target was?

Anyway, your claims about Israelis thinking it was an Egyptian ship flying a false flag are nonsense. Not even the Israelis say that's what happened.

In other words, I asked a question and I'd like to see it answered, not buried in a pile of bullshit and attempts to change the subject.

The problem is you're assuming false things in your argument.

This was the conversation that led up to my posing the question:

angelo: "Make no mistake, this group is cut off the same branch as ISIS which in turn are all branches of the muslim brotherhood and other Islamic terrorist groups. Israel is the only democracy in the whole Middle East region, the only state that's standing between freedom and anarchy and genocide.
All so called "atrocities" from the Israeli side are in self defence. Most are in response to provocation."

Me: "The history of the conflict is rife with examples of atrocities committed by both sides, with both sides claiming they were responding to provocation. Can you support the claims of one side and counter the claims of the other without resorting to racism and special pleading? I've never seen it happen in these threads."

What part of what I said to angelo do you think is an assumption of false things?

The history of the conflict is rife with examples of atrocities committed by both sides, with both sides claiming they were responding to provocation. Can you support the claims of one side and counter the claims of the other without resorting to racism and special pleading, or not? I'm pretty sure I know what your honest answer will be, but I was asking angelo, and I'd like to give him some time to think about it.

Where are the modern atrocities from Israel? All I hear are things like the so-called Jenin massacre--which vanished when subjected to scrutiny. 90% of the dead weren't.

You missed part of what I said. Here it is:

"In other words, I asked a question and I'd like to see it answered, not buried in a pile of bullshit and attempts to change the subject."

You keep trying to change the subject before the question is answered. That's your prerogative, of course, but I don't have to go along with it, you know. If you're not going to answer the question, or give someone else a decent chance to think about it, I'm not going to accommodate you, either.

They attacked before there was any oppression.

When, in your opinion, did the attacks start? Please provide a month and year.

When Israel announced it's intention to form a country. Before then it was fairly low level but it's been going on for centuries.

Israel didn't exist before May 14, 1948, so it couldn't have announced anything before that date. Is that when you say the attacks began?

 

[angelo]

Israel didn't exist before 1948? I know the bible is just a record of superstitious people and shit, but archaeologists have uncovered evidence for king David from millennia ago. Most certainly Israelis can lay claim to that piece of land before anyone else!

 

[Arctish]

Israel didn't exist before 1948? I know the bible is just a record of superstitious people and shit, but archaeologists have uncovered evidence for king David from millennia ago.

There were a few different kingdoms BCE that were given the name (a united one, a northern one, a southern one, a Maccabean one, etc.) just like there was a Palestine in the same place, but that's not what Loren was talking about. He means the modern version.

Most certainly Israelis can lay claim to that piece of land before anyone else!

Actually, no. Both Israelis and Palestinians descendants of the ancient population, and the descendants who never left the region have a stronger claim to it than those who did.

Have you ever seen any of the genetic studies done on Middle Eastern populations? The results keep coming back the same. They show that the Jewish people who remained in the vicinity of Jerusalem are most closely related to their Palestinian neighbors, Muslim and Christian alike. The connection to Ashkenazi and Sephardic Jews is more distant, which makes sense considering the Ashkenazi were in Europe for thousands of years while the Palestinians were living side by side under the Ottomans. Also, there has been a considerable amount of religious conversions over the centuries. Jews became Christians became Muslims married Jews who raised children who became Jews or Christians or Muslims, and so forth.

The people with the strongest claim to the lands around Jerusalem are the ones whose ancestors have always lived there - the non-immigrant Palestinians and Israelis of all faiths. Claiming European Jews have a right to live in Jerusalem based on their ancient ancestry while denying the same right to the actual indigenous population descended from the same ancestors makes no sense at all, but it's a convenient and comforting cultural meme that benefits the powerful and suits current US foreign policy in the region, so of course we're all supposed to act like it's perfectly reasonable.

 

[Jayjay]

Yet, Israel made peace with King of Jordan, but kept oppressing Palestinians who had nothing to do with starting the war.

Sure, Israel can continue a military occupation until there are negotiations. But it cannot unilaterally annex land or oppress the civilian population that it occupies; annexation and changing borders can only happen as result of negotiation*. As for blaming Palestinians for refusing to negotiate, there is no amount of "negotiation" that would convince Israel give up East Jerusalem either.

(* Only exception in my opinion, though not recognized by international law, is if the annexation does not entail population transfers and all the people living or making their livelihood in the annexed land get full and equal citizenship rights. That's why nobody here is complaining about Golan Heights.)

More like Jordan made peace with Israel.

Everybody who has actually been willing to make peace with Israel without loading it down with impossible conditions has made peace with them.

That does not excuse impossible conditions demanded by Israel. One such condition would be a viable, sovereign state in West Bank and dismantling the illegal settlements. A fair demand, but "impossible" because Israel would rather keep the land it conqueredand continue to subjugate Palestinians. All because of religious fanaticism that fuels Israel, same way Islamist fanaticism fuels groups like Hamas.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

More like Jordan made peace with Israel.

Everybody who has actually been willing to make peace with Israel without loading it down with impossible conditions has made peace with them.

That does not excuse impossible conditions demanded by Israel. One such condition would be a viable, sovereign state in West Bank and dismantling the illegal settlements. A fair demand, but "impossible" because Israel would rather keep the land it conqueredand continue to subjugate Palestinians. All because of religious fanaticism that fuels Israel, same way Islamist fanaticism fuels groups like Hamas.

The stumbling block isn't the settlements, it's Israel insisting on a demilitarized state because they know that otherwise it's just going to be used to bring in more weapons to attack Israel with.

 

[angelo]

The other stumbling block is the Palestinian insistence of a " a right of return." This is not possible because then there would no longer be a state of Israel.

 

[arkirk]

Well. isn't that interesting?

The other stumbling block is the Palestinian insistence of a " a right of return." This is not possible because then there would no longer be a state of Israel.

So, you are admitting that present day Israel had millions of Palestinian inhabitants? That is something like the same sort of relationship the native americans had with the great white hoarde. The Manifest Destiny people felt it was an empty land with only savages in the way...something less than human...something to be relocated and occupied. I think I am beginning to understand you and Loren now.

You both allow yourselves an amoral postion based on racist assumptions of non human qualities of Arabs. You both think Custer was a fine fellow and a hero. We can't go back to that state of ignorance. Why do you characterize this conflict as something out of the old west complete with, "the only good Indian is a dead Indian?"

You both narrate endlessly the tale of the guys in the white hats being the good guys and the black hats being the bad guys. You rush to deny the rest of us any moderation in our own thinking about the potential of these peoples to coexist with us under one government. At the root of it is a troubling guilt at the ethnic cleansing, the genocide, and the taking of the means of survival from these indigenous peoples...the taking of their lands. The Palestinians had a cultural heritage and some were downright civilized....complete with running water and automobiles. Modern day Palestine is not the old west and it is wrong to pine for it. It was a period of shameful decimation of countless tribes...sometimes by the most devious means...and approved of by our government.

So, it might be argued they are just like us. Israel's methods are as blind to human rights as the settlers of the old west were, We have matured a bit in regard to native americans, just a bit. Israel on the other hand seems locked in a hebephrensic trance in a kind of state adolescence, still getting rid of the things of childhood, like cooperation, and love and caring for each other. Israel is simply locked in a concept of racial purity that rivals the Nazis and the Apartheid government of South Africa.

The right of return would interfere with Netanyahu's messianic dream of a state dedicated to Jewry. Maybe if we got rid of him, somebody else in that country would come forward with an opposite view...one of a secular state where Jews and Arabs were equal. They are, you know.

 

[Arctish]

The stumbling block isn't the settlements, it's Israel insisting on a demilitarized state because they know that otherwise it's just going to be used to bring in more weapons to attack Israel with.

The other stumbling block is the Palestinian insistence of a " a right of return." This is not possible because then there would no longer be a state of Israel.

Yes, those are stumbling blocks, but not insurmountable obstacles.

It's not impossible to have a lasting peace with a former enemy who maintains a fighting force. Most countries in the world have done it. There's no reason (other than arrant racism) to think the Israelis and Palestinians can't.

It's not impossible to respect and uphold the rights of refugees to return to their homes while also respecting and upholding the human rights of the people who made them refugees. Other countries have done that, too. There's no reason (other than arrant racism) to think the Israelis and Palestinians can't.

What is impossible is achieving a just, fair, and lasting peace when the process revolves around accommodating religious bigotry and racial prejudice, and screwing over the neighbors. Those things just don't go together.

 

[angelo]

There were an estimated 4-600.000 [UN figures] there in 1948. If all Palestinians who could prove they lived in Palestine and all their descendants were given right of return Israel would no longer be Israel but just another Arab state with a Jewish minority which would disappear by an Arab genocide of every single Jew.

 

[Togo]

There were an estimated 4-600.000 [UN figures] there in 1948. If all Palestinians who could prove they lived in Palestine and all their descendants were given right of return Israel would no longer be Israel but just another Arab state with a Jewish minority which would disappear by an Arab genocide of every single Jew.

Which is precisely why a fulfilment of the right to return involving cash compensation, rather than an actual return of Palestinians, has been proposed by Fatah, Hamas, and the Arab League.

 

[Arctish]

There were an estimated 4-600.000 [UN figures] there in 1948. If all Palestinians who could prove they lived in Palestine and all their descendants were given right of return Israel would no longer be Israel but just another Arab state with a Jewish minority which would disappear by an Arab genocide of every single Jew.

""We are of the same race and blood, and cooperation will bring great prosperity to the land," wrote Emir Faisal to Felix Frankfurter in 1917. Faisal was known for his affinity to the Zionists who had begun streaming to the Holy Land; in 1919, he signed a cooperation agreement with Chaim Weizmann, to whom he wrote that he was "mindful of the racial kinship and ancient bonds existing between the Arabs and the Jewish people." But Faisal's proclamations of kinship with the Jews were more than lip service to a commonly held belief, says Tsvi Misinai, who knows perhaps more about the origins of the modern Palestinians than anyone. "Faisal's paternal line was Hashemite," he says, "meaning he was directly descended from Muhammad. But the mother of his maternal grandfather, King On, was descended from a family of forced Jewish converts to Islam that immigrated to the east bank of the Jordan, later returning to one of the villages west of the Jordan.

Unlike today, when Faisal was growing up, his grandfather's mother's Jewish origin was known, and they made no great effort to hide it. And what was known to Faisal is known to many Palestinians today as well." This is a story of what may be one of the best-kept secrets in history - one that could, in time, heal the terrible rift that has torn the Land of Israel asunder. After years of research, Misinai says that he can declare with certainty that nearly 90 percent of all Palestinians are descended from the Jews. "And what's more, about half of them know it," he says."
<link>

Jewish, Muslim, and Christian Palestinians lived together, worked together, and married into each other's families for centuries before the sudden influx of European Zionists and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire inflamed religious and racial tensions in Palestine. So before you bet the farm on "Genocide if the Jews aren't in charge", perhaps you should take another look at the history books and genetic studies that document close family connections between Palestinians of all faiths prior to the turmoil that led to the creation of the State of Israel.

 

[angelo]

There were an estimated 4-600.000 [UN figures] there in 1948. If all Palestinians who could prove they lived in Palestine and all their descendants were given right of return Israel would no longer be Israel but just another Arab state with a Jewish minority which would disappear by an Arab genocide of every single Jew.

Which is precisely why a fulfilment of the right to return involving cash compensation, rather than an actual return of Palestinians, has been proposed by Fatah, Hamas, and the Arab League.

The Arabs would take the money then and still refuse to recognise the State Of Israel. We are dealing with terrorists here not Western culture.

 

[angelo]

There were an estimated 4-600.000 [UN figures] there in 1948. If all Palestinians who could prove they lived in Palestine and all their descendants were given right of return Israel would no longer be Israel but just another Arab state with a Jewish minority which would disappear by an Arab genocide of every single Jew.

""We are of the same race and blood, and cooperation will bring great prosperity to the land," wrote Emir Faisal to Felix Frankfurter in 1917. Faisal was known for his affinity to the Zionists who had begun streaming to the Holy Land; in 1919, he signed a cooperation agreement with Chaim Weizmann, to whom he wrote that he was "mindful of the racial kinship and ancient bonds existing between the Arabs and the Jewish people." But Faisal's proclamations of kinship with the Jews were more than lip service to a commonly held belief, says Tsvi Misinai, who knows perhaps more about the origins of the modern Palestinians than anyone. "Faisal's paternal line was Hashemite," he says, "meaning he was directly descended from Muhammad. But the mother of his maternal grandfather, King On, was descended from a family of forced Jewish converts to Islam that immigrated to the east bank of the Jordan, later returning to one of the villages west of the Jordan.

Unlike today, when Faisal was growing up, his grandfather's mother's Jewish origin was known, and they made no great effort to hide it. And what was known to Faisal is known to many Palestinians today as well." This is a story of what may be one of the best-kept secrets in history - one that could, in time, heal the terrible rift that has torn the Land of Israel asunder. After years of research, Misinai says that he can declare with certainty that nearly 90 percent of all Palestinians are descended from the Jews. "And what's more, about half of them know it," he says."
<link>

Jewish, Muslim, and Christian Palestinians lived together, worked together, and married into each other's families for centuries before the sudden influx of European Zionists and the collapse of the Ottoman Empire inflamed religious and racial tensions in Palestine. So before you bet the farm on "Genocide if the Jews aren't in charge", perhaps you should take another look at the history books and genetic studies that document close family connections between Palestinians of all faiths prior to the turmoil that led to the creation of the State of Israel.

Please Google the Hamas and Hezobola charter. The real charter, not the one flashed out for Western eyes while the one stating the destruction of Israel is for Arab eyes only.

 

[Arctish]

Which is precisely why a fulfilment of the right to return involving cash compensation, rather than an actual return of Palestinians, has been proposed by Fatah, Hamas, and the Arab League.

The Arabs would take the money then and still refuse to recognise the State Of Israel. We are dealing with terrorists here not Western culture.

The Palestinians recognized the right of Israel to exist more than 20 years ago, back when Arafat was still in charge and the Oslo Accords were in effect.

 

[Arctish]

Please Google the Hamas and Hezobola charter. The real charter, not the one flashed out for Western eyes while the one stating the destruction of Israel is for Arab eyes only.

I've read them. Do you think every Palestinian is a Hamas supporter?

Did you read the Jerusalem Post article about the family relationships between Jewish, Christian, and Muslim Palestinians? Did you understand the point I was making about genocide not happening when Jews didn't have the upper hand in Palestine?

 

[angelo]

Yea right! While fighting a terrorist war behind those words?

 

[Arctish]

Yea right! While fighting a terrorist war behind those words?

I don't understand this reply.

 

[angelo]

Arafat was a conniving SOB with several faces. One face he reserved for Western audiences. Another for the hard-liners while others for his Arab neighbours both moderate and militant.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The other stumbling block is the Palestinian insistence of a " a right of return." This is not possible because then there would no longer be a state of Israel.

Yes, those are stumbling blocks, but not insurmountable obstacles.

It's not impossible to have a lasting peace with a former enemy who maintains a fighting force. Most countries in the world have done it. There's no reason (other than arrant racism) to think the Israelis and Palestinians can't.

No reason? The fact that the Palestinians have said they will continue the violence even if they get a two-state solution isn't a reason to think they might actually do so?

It's not impossible to respect and uphold the rights of refugees to return to their homes while also respecting and upholding the human rights of the people who made them refugees. Other countries have done that, too. There's no reason (other than arrant racism) to think the Israelis and Palestinians can't.

The whole idea of the right of return is to get enough Palestinians into Israel to elect the terrorists as the new government. That's why it's a big stumbling block.

What is impossible is achieving a just, fair, and lasting peace when the process revolves around accommodating religious bigotry and racial prejudice, and screwing over the neighbors. Those things just don't go together.

A lasting peace is impossible so long as billions in Islamist money pours in to continue the fighting. That money is the true source of the conflict, not anything that happens in Israel or Palestine.

- - - Updated - - -

There were an estimated 4-600.000 [UN figures] there in 1948. If all Palestinians who could prove they lived in Palestine and all their descendants were given right of return Israel would no longer be Israel but just another Arab state with a Jewish minority which would disappear by an Arab genocide of every single Jew.

That number is *WAY* out of date.

The Palestinians count refugees the way 1800s America counted blacks. The current number of "refugees" is in the millions, although an awful lot are actually only 1/8th displaced.

- - - Updated - - -

The Arabs would take the money then and still refuse to recognise the State Of Israel. We are dealing with terrorists here not Western culture.

The Palestinians recognized the right of Israel to exist more than 20 years ago, back when Arafat was still in charge and the Oslo Accords were in effect.

For western ears. They never changed the charter.