Does Israel have a "right" to Palestine?

[Falvlun]

The whole problem with recognising "Palestine" as a sovereign state is that there is no Palestine state. You can not recognise something that doesnt exist.

The world simply doesnt work that way.

Huh? There was no state of Israel either and that didn't stop us from making one. States are created all the time.

 

[Shermana]

Huh? There was no state of Israel either and that didn't stop us from making one. States are created all the time.

There was a Kingdom of Israel, there was never a Kingdom of Palestine. Nothing close to an independent Palestinian state until 1946 when the Emirate-of-Palestine Jordan became independent. Not even during the Arab conquest when they built the Dome of the Rock straight on the Jewish Holy site. I don't see why it should matter whether it was 2000 years ago or not.

The word Palestinian was unheard of until the 1960s. Until then, Palestine was never anything more than an administrative unit without any real autonomy, usually ruled from a Syrian or Egyptian power base. The movement to create a state of "Palestine" was not based on any prior Political establishment, and as you yourself seems to indicate, they were quite silent during Jordanian occupation. It's effectively proven that what they really wanted was just Arab domination of the region and to drive the Jews out, regardless what they called themselves or identified as, which was originally "Southern Syrian Arabs".

 

[Flankerl]

Huh? There was no state of Israel either and that didn't stop us from making one. States are created all the time.

Then again Israel got recognised after it was created...

 

[Dingbat]

Then again Israel got recognised after it was created...

Because it was backed by the UK, USA, and USSR. Who is going to disagree with three of the biggest powers in the world? This seems a very odd idea of what makes something legitimate or not. Then again these topics become about screaming past each other instead of talking...like politics in general.

 

[jazzymom]

Huh? There was no state of Israel either and that didn't stop us from making one. States are created all the time.

We had Palestine a territory and named such by the Romans after the last Jewish revolt against the Roman occupation.

Now we have Israel a state that came into being in 1948 and we would have had a Palestinian state if they had accepted it but they did not.

2 states were supposed to happen after the partition of the Palestinian territory.

 

[Dingbat]

We had Palestine a territory and named such by the Romans after the last Jewish revolt against the Roman occupation.

Now we have Israel a state that came into being in 1948 and we would have had a Palestinian state if they had accepted it but they did not.

2 states were supposed to happen after the partition of the Palestinian territory.

Indeed, now the current situation is how to resolve the conflict but I don't see too many people outside of Israel that are eager for a fair two state solution. If Palestine hadn't been the aggressor it would have a much better leg diplomatically to stand on. Though now their children and grandchildren suffer for a complete political blunder.

 

[jazzymom]

Indeed, now the current situation is how to resolve the conflict but I don't see too many people outside of Israel that are eager for a fair two state solution. If Palestine hadn't been the aggressor it would have a much better leg diplomatically to stand on. Though now their children and grandchildren suffer for a complete political blunder.

Yes I agree with you and I will add that the terrorism for the last 64 years against Israeli citizens is another reason for the absolute mistrust.

The ongoing incitement in the West Bank and the rocket fire from Gaza.

So for many until these stop how can there be trust?

Trust is a 2 way street, and the peace negotiation is a 2 way street.

Israel left Gaza several years ago and now has to contend with Hamas and rocket fire. So that does not show peace in fact it is a picture of what could happen in the West Bank.

There children suffer because the surrounding Arab states have left them to live in refugee camps, and they are used as pawns.

They have been abused by the surrounding Arab states in allowing this to happen. They are the only refugees in the history of refugees to inherit this status.

There were Jewish refugees along with Palestinian refugees.

When the world was filled with Jewish refugees they were taken in by other countries and Israel and resettled.

This should have happened with the Palestinians.

So I don't know.

 

[jazzymom]

Because it was backed by the UK, USA, and USSR. Who is going to disagree with three of the biggest powers in the world? This seems a very odd idea of what makes something legitimate or not. Then again these topics become about screaming past each other instead of talking...like politics in general.

The partition would have created a Jewish and Palestinian state.

2 states for 2 people.

So yes Israel is absolutely legitimate and the Palestinian state would have been legitimate had they not turned it down.

Many voted against the partition, but the majority voted for the partition.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Indeed, now the current situation is how to resolve the conflict but I don't see too many people outside of Israel that are eager for a fair two state solution.

Salaam. I'm not sure I understand. Who, outside of Israel, do you believe to be resistant to a fair 2-state solution and what might such a solution look like?

 

[Dingbat]

Yes I agree with you and I will add that the terrorism for the last 64 years against Israeli citizens is another reason for the absolute mistrust.

The ongoing incitement in the West Bank and the rocket fire from Gaza.

So for many until these stop how can there be trust?

Trust is a 2 way street, and the peace negotiation is a 2 way street.

Israel left Gaza several years ago and now has to contend with Hamas and rocket fire. So that does not show peace in fact it is a picture of what could happen in the West Bank.

There children suffer because the surrounding Arab states have left them to live in refugee camps, and they are used as pawns.

They have been abused by the surrounding Arab states in allowing this to happen. They are the only refugees in the history of refugees to inherit this status.

There were Jewish refugees along with Palestinian refugees.

When the world was filled with Jewish refugees they were taken in by other countries and Israel and resettled.

This should have happened with the Palestinians.

So I don't know.

To be honest displaced Palestinians work better politically for the Arab States than refugees living in countries abroad. I think a peace process can go forward but the acceptance of Israel remaining has to be accepted first. It is a very personal issue for many people both Jews and Arabs but I think it needs to be remembered that it is being used as an attempt to whip up anti-Israel sentiment. Maybe things will settle down in a few years but the future is quite unclear.

 

[Dingbat]

Salaam. I'm not sure I understand. Who, outside of Israel, do you believe to be resistant to a fair 2-state solution and what might such a solution look like?

Many of the Arab states seem unwilling to commit to a bilateral peace as well as Hamas and the PLO. I think many support outside of the Middle East for such a bilateral peace but I think some of the key players in the ME are unwilling to compromise whether through political momentum or actual hate of Israel. I am unsure what such a peace would look like as I openly admit to being familiar enough to decide. That would have to be between Israelis and Palestinians.

 

[F0uad]

Well since Israel has most of the land and still illegally occupies Palestine's land i think that the ball is at the Israeli government. There has been done no effort to stop the illegal settlements in Gaza and the West-bank so claiming to want a two state solution or a peaceful ending is just laughable.

 

[jazzymom]

Well since Israel has most of the land and still illegally occupies Palestine's land i think that the ball is at the Israeli government. There has been done no effort to stop the illegal settlements in Gaza and the West-bank so claiming to want a two state solution or a peaceful ending is just laughable.

The land is occupied because Israel was attacked and land was won. In previous negotiations the settlements were not an issues and that is why they should not be an issue now.

With a peace agreement and agreed on land swaps the issue of settlements would be solved.

As to Gaza Israel left Gaza years ago and all the settlements were destroyed and Gaza is now 100% in the hands of the Palestinians and run by Hamas.
In fact Palestinians in Gaza routinely send rockets into Israeli civilian areas.

So we can scratch Gaza off the list places occupied.

What also ought to be remembered is that the wars fought have been defensive when Arab nations attacked Israel and lost.

 

[Freedomelf]

To my mind the important question is not a historical one but a contemporary one.
Do the people of Israel have a right to their state? The answer seems obvious to me. Of course they do. Moreover, I believe they are entitled to live in it without fear, threat, intimidation or harassment.

I agree. And I also agree that the Palestinians have a right to exactly the same thing.

 

[Freedomelf]

The land is occupied because Israel was attacked and land was won. In previous negotiations the settlements were not an issues and that is why they should not be an issue now.

What also ought to be remembered is that the wars fought have been defensive when Arab nations attacked Israel and lost.

I'm afraid this is a rewrite of history, and not a very good one. The 1967 war, in which so much land was gained by Israel, was started by Israel. It began on June 5 when Israel launched a surprise bombing raid against Egyptian air fields.

Yes, there were tensions between the two nations, as always. But Israel started the war in which they gained all that territory, and the UN has never recognized that "theft."

I believe strongly that Israel must be protected. But I also believe that they must give up the land they stole, so that the Palestinians may have a chance to achieve what the Israelis have.

 

[Shermana]

I'm afraid this is a rewrite of history, and not a very good one. The 1967 war, in which so much land was gained by Israel, was started by Israel. It began on June 5 when Israel launched a surprise bombing raid against Egyptian air fields.

Would you explain why Israel decided to attack Egypt and risk a four-pronged war? Could it be that Egypt stacked a hundred thousand troops on the border? Do you not consider closing the Straits of Tiran to be an act of war? I do. And perhaps you're unaware that Egypt was announcing daily that they were going to take those 100,000 troops they mobilized on the matter to turn Israel into a sea of blood. Would you like quotes?

Yes, there were tensions between the two nations, as always. But Israel started the war in which they gained all that territory, and the UN has never recognized that "theft."

Israel only started the hostilities, Egypt clearly provoked them and was preparing to invade and made an outright act of war in closing the straits of Tiran. I think you're under the impression Egypt was just minding its own business peacefully. If someone's loading their gun and aiming at me, I'm gonna shoot them first. Quite logical. Iran's offering the same posture to Israel right now even.

I believe strongly that Israel must be protected. But I also believe that they must give up the land they stole, so that the Palestinians may have a chance to achieve what the Israelis have

Ah, another person who thinks the land is "Stolen". Stolen from who, Jordan? Maybe we should have a whole thread called "Did Israel steal Judea-Samaria"? Do you believe the country you live in should give your house back which is on stolen land by chance or do you only apply your sentiments to countries far away? If you're going to be a champion for returning stolen land back, you might want to start with your own backyard. When you give your house away to a suicidally depressed alcoholic Native, let me know.

Why should Israel allow the people who instigated the war and outright declared their intention to massacre them the "Chance to achieve what they have"? Why are Israelis required to have big warm forgiving hearts, willing to forgive attempted murder and unwillingness to work peace? Why do you single out Israel to help its sworn enemies? What nation in history has been required to do that? If the USA didn't need Germany's help against the USSR and Japan's against China, I doubt things would have been as nice as they did.,

 

[Shermana]

I agree. And I also agree that the Palestinians have a right to exactly the same thing.

They have one, it's called Jordan. Sits on 80% of the Palestinian mandate in fact. The Palestinians got 80% of Palestine, and they accuse the Jews of being greedy? Just because it's ruled by the Hashemite Monarch who the world doesn't care about doesn't mean his rule is legitimate. Why aren't the Palestinians spending the same energy overthrowing the Hashemites?

 

[jazzymom]

I'm afraid this is a rewrite of history, and not a very good one. The 1967 war, in which so much land was gained by Israel, was started by Israel. It began on June 5 when Israel launched a surprise bombing raid against Egyptian air fields.

Yes, there were tensions between the two nations, as always. But Israel started the war in which they gained all that territory, and the UN has never recognized that "theft."

I believe strongly that Israel must be protected. But I also believe that they must give up the land they stole, so that the Palestinians may have a chance to achieve what the Israelis have.

NPR : The Mideast : A Century of Conflict : Part 4

Israel attacked first and historians agree it was a defensive action.

I don't believe it was stolen but won in a cat and mouse game that was played out and a war fought because of it.

I don't believe it was stolen but won.

The Soviet Union let Syria believe that Israel was going to attack Syria and they shared that info with Nasser who closed the Gulf of Aqaba to shipping, cutting off Israel's primary oil supplies. Nasser also made all peace keepers leave the Sinai. He then build up his military along the border of the Sinai. Nasser had the strongest army in the middle east at the time.

So these were acts of aggression and Israel attacked.

So I stand by that Israel may have attacked but given the actions she had a right to defend and with the aggression of Nasser of Egypt and the manipulations coming form the Soviet Union there was cause.

I expect a country surrounded by countries who for 19 years at that point to have done everything they could to destroy her as a country to be wary and to expect more aggression.

I don't believe the land was stolen but won after other countries set up circumstances that led to aggressive behavior from Egypt and the fear of war so Israel attacked.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Well since Israel has most of the land and still illegally occupies Palestine's land ...

F0uad, respectfully, it is very hard to look at a map and take that seriously.

 

[Dingbat]

Israeli Palestinian Conflict

Just looking at that part of the article it looks like there has been some positive overtures lately. Not perfect but a far less dreary picture than is being painted. Not close to healing the schism but I see a light at the end of the tunnel if such positive overtures can be kept going.