Does Israel have a "right" to Palestine?

[Shermana]

. Moreover I think everybody who has criticised your ridiculous Jordan plan actually does have other ideas, some of which they have suggested to you and you have ignored.

So far the only criticism of my Jordan transfer plan is a bunch of calls of "Bigot", and a few things about how the Jordanian government (i.e. the Hashemite tyrants) might not approve and some things about UN and Geneva deals of population transfer (which hasn't exactly stopped Turkey and other countries and may not even apply to the territories in question). Any criticism about the "brutality towards the innocent Palestinians" would have to involve a discussion about how much better their miserable "West Bank" lives would be compared to Jordan, but I don't see why Israel should have to play nice nice with the same people whose leadership tried to massacre them for decades. What are some of these other ideas you claim that have been presented, I must have missed them so please by all means tell what you speak of, and then I will address the rest. But yeah, you claim that I have ignored some of these suggestions and ideas, that would be true if I actually saw some of these alleged suggestions and ideas you claim have been presented, but I somehow must have missed. Can anyone else show me some of these suggestions that I missed? I'm sure you wouldn't just be making that up or anything, so please show me what you speak of.

People like you are their justification for existence.

A perfect example of the kind of "criticism" of my plan, basically personal attacks without any actual substance or with some kind of feigned sympathy based on a total disregard for the history and realpolitik. Usually followed by total fallacies of the historical situation and some kind of calls for restraint that no other country on Earth would take seriously if they were in that position. So if the people who actually stand up to them and their pressure tactics are the "justification for their existence", I can just go ahead and say that the Liberal whiners only enable them and thus justify their tactics. People like YOU would probably be against the Separation wall which reduced terror attacks by 90%, right? Or do you support the Separation wall too?

you want to talk about your plan okay a few questions for you. Who is going to pay for the financial incentives to get the Palestinians to move en mass to Jordan? Who is going to support Jordan in accommodating all these refugees? I am not talking about who you think should do it for your own prejudiced reasons, I am talking about who actually would be able to do it in the real world in which we live?

The political specifics economics and taxes used for this would be for an entirely different thread. The fact that you refer to it as "your own prejudiced reasons" only demonstrates further that you have absolutely no concern for the actual realpolitik and you make it a personal issue.

So if anyone can make an actual criticism that doesn't involve nothing but a personal smear or a complete ignoring of the facts on the ground and the history or a ridiculously unfair compromise on Israel's part, that would be great. As for whether Jordan would agree, I'm sure they would appreciate the financial incentive, and if not, a little Mossad action can help the Palestinians living there make the Hashemite Tyrants fall to the mudhole they belong. (Gonna stand up for them? )I assume you have NO problem with the Hashemite government by chance? Or am I wrong and you advocate the Hashemites reliniqushing power back to the Palestinian people?

And are you aware how large Jordan is, comapared to the "West Bank" (JUDEA-Samaria)? And how underpopulated they are and how much natural resources they have? Judging by your response, the fact you think Jordan wouldn't be able to accomodate them, I don't think you are familiar with just how much economic potential Jordan has, and how underpopulated it is.

Again, nobody in this thread has suggested that Israel should do "absolutely nothing".

So far, the closest thing I've seen to any sort of planned solution is to "hope the Palestinians pick rational leaders". Like I said, if you so think that other practical solutions have been suggested, I totally must have missed it, so please by all means remind me. A simple post reference can take less than 3 seconds to link to.

Clearly your so called plan becomes nothing more than an insane pretext to do something very aggressive and violent against the Palestinians.

It must be nice to be able to criticize this plan as "insane" where you don't have hostile political groups as leaders who have actively declared to drive you out, and you think Israel must for some reason not fight fire with fire. And I assume you have no problem with Israel's Demographic time bomb issue either. And the fact you call it "violent" goes to show that you're not even on the same page. It's about as "violent" as Israel already is to keep the Palestinians in check, and would give them far greater freedoms and economic opprotunities. But of course, none of that or the history or the political realities seem to matter to you, as long as you get to claim some moral high ground, without of course considering the fact that Hamas and the PA (the Al-Aqsas have the final say, not Abbas) have a far worse plan for Israel. But of course, "just because they want to destroy Israel doesn't mean its right for Israel to remove them", because ......


Now you were asking me what authority I'd invoke? What authority would I NEED to invoke other than Israel's autonomous independence? I assume that you think the PA and Hamas have a valid authority to plan to ethnically cleanse the Jews out? Or do you have way that will make their leaders rational and willing to discuss peace on fair terms? (You are aware that they ahve rejected EVERY peace plan with Israel, right? Take that into account, dealing with leaders who have REJECTED EVERY PEACE PLAN!)

 

[Cassiopia]

Well I may be new here but I am beginning to see why some people get very frustrated with you. The closest you came to actually answering one of my criticisms of your plan was to suggest it would need another thread because it is too complicated to explain.
You then attack me and others by suggesting that we are attacking you. We are not. We are attacking the plan you have put before us. A plan which is unworkable and incredibly unfair.
If you don't feel you need any authority other than to invoke Israel's autonomous independence, then A) couldn't the same apply to the Palestinians and B) fortunately even the government of Israel understands there are other issues to consider.

My solution is not to do nothing but to continue with diplomacy. Despite extremists like yourself and Hammas, the majority of people in the region (both Jews and Arabs) want to live in peace and get on with their lives as normally as anybody else. It may well take years and a few miracles to achieve and I think the ultimate solution will require a lot more compromises on both sides than either is willing to concede right now.
But the alternative is war on a greater scale than the region has ever known. A war in which there will be no winners and which could lay the whole region to waste for centuries. It won't matter who starts it or who finishes it; most of the Jews and most of the Arabs in the region will die. And it is a war that could migrate to the rest of the world as well. No sane person wants that.
This is the thought that may eventually force all those in the region to sit down to meaningful talks; talks that must be based on political realities rather than religious zeal.

 

[Shermana]

Well I may be new here but I am beginning to see why some people get very frustrated with you

Because I shoot down their BS and call them out on it? I'm quite used to it.

.

The closest you came to actually answering one of my criticisms of your plan was to suggest it would need another thread because it is too complicated to explain.

It's also not relevant, it would be more relevant on my 2 state solution thread. However, I have severely edited that post so feel free to reread.

You then attack me and others by suggesting that we are attacking you. We are not. We are attacking the plan you have put before us. A plan which is unworkable and incredibly unfair.

Try not using the phrase "People like you" and then talk. Now as for being incredibly unfair, there's a big rub right there. I think it's COMPLETELY fair. What's unfair is liberal whiners who want Israel to to play with kid's gloves against its would-be massacreres. As for unworkable, I think its completely workable.

If you don't feel you need any authority other than to invoke Israel's autonomous independence, then A) couldn't the same apply to the Palestinians and B) fortunately even the government of Israel understands there are other issues to consider.

I fail to see any actual point of contention here. The authority is that Israel won the war the Palestinians started, not the Palestinians.

My solution is not to do nothing but to continue with diplomacy

Like I said, the only solution that's been presented here is to "Hope for rational leaders". Which translates to "Wait until they have the upper hand". Diplomacy is an empty word. Basically, that translates to: "Do nothing until the Palestinians agree to something rational". Why don't you go into details of this so-called Diplomacy that Israel has been TRYING FOR DECADES. Are you unaware of all the peace treaties Israel has offered? They know they have time on their side, that's why the Palis stall and stall.

. Despite extremists like yourself and Hammas, the majority of people in the region (both Jews and Arabs) want to live in peace and get on with their lives as normally as anybody else. It may well take years and a few miracles to achieve and I think the ultimate solution will require a lot more compromises on both sides than either is willing to concede right now.

Did you just say it will take years and miracles? Time is not on Israel's side, they are well ware of this and the Palis are quite happy about this, that's why Diplomacy is utterly futile.

But the alternative is war on a greater scale than the region has ever known. A war in which there will be no winners and which could lay the whole region to waste for centuries. It won't matter who starts it or who finishes it; most of the Jews and most of the Arabs in the region will die. And it is a war that could migrate to the rest of the world as well. No sane person wants that.

How do you know that? Israel has handled herself quite well against every major war until now. Are you saying just give up the fight ahead of time? If Israel didn't have to walk on eggshells and had a free hand to use the same tactics her enemies use, they could flatten all their opposition with minimal casualties. Besides, the possibility of a conflict between Israel and other ME powers is very high already, war is seemingly inevitable at this point. It's just a matter of when. Basically it boils down to telling Israel to leave or resist future aggression.

This is the thought that may eventually force all those in the region to sit down to meaningful talks; talks that must be based on political realities rather than religious zeal

So, like I said exactly to the Tee, your solution is to "Wait for rational leaders". No thanks. Tried that for 60 years. And by the time anything happens, Israel will be majority Arab.

 

[England my lionheart]

Meaning if I don't agree I must be uneducated?
Excuse me while I cry into my wine glass.

Yes there are Palestinians who want the worst for Israel. But despite the hardships they have often had to put up with there are many who just want to raise their kids and live in peace like anyone else. I think such people are probably still in a majority among the Palestinians.

Real peace will take all those boring things like time and diplomacy; and hard compromises on both sides.

I agree with the hard compromises part,its very hard for a significant amount of people to discount a party manifesto.

 

[F0uad]

I think we are dealing here with two kind of mindsets.
One sees it as hes/her home and the other sees it as everyone's home.

I just have a question and i hope someone can answer this with some honesty why not let the Palestine have a independent state with there own borders, own air space? The only thing Palestine is asking at the moment is for Israel to recognize Palestine, you keep Israel just recognize Palestine as they recognized Israel over and over. Let them make the country we shouldn't be involved in there political framework or ask how they will accomplish it i am pretty sure Palestinians can do it if they are recognized first.

 

[Rakhel]

They are international political pawns. They will never be allowed to accomplish what you are asking.
Sorry, but that seems to be the reality of the situation.

 

[Einstimer]

This topic is a loaded question. There is no such thing as Palestine. No such thing as Palestinians. Anyone who has an unbiased view of history will know that plain as day. I personally don't waste time debating someone who says otherwise.

The question should be, "Does Israel have a right to defend its own territory?" And the answer is clearly yes.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

There is no such thing as Palestine. No such thing as Palestinians.

That is absolute rubbish.

National identity and nations are the product of historical circumstances. By the end of the 19th century there were roughly 43 thousand Jews and rouphly 432 thousand Muslims in what was then termed Palestine. To claim that the latter have no right to a national identity is ugly and preposterous.

 

[beenie]

This topic is a loaded question. There is no such thing as Palestine. No such thing as Palestinians. Anyone who has an unbiased view of history will know that plain as day. I personally don't waste time debating someone who says otherwise.

The question should be, "Does Israel have a right to defend its own territory?" And the answer is clearly yes.

Well, thank you for your completely unbiased perspective. :sarcastic

If this topic is such a waste of time for you, why did you feel compelled to reply at all?

 

[beenie]

That is absolute rubbish.

National identity and nations are the product of historical circumstances. By the end of the 19th century there were roughly 43 thousand Jews and rouphly 432 thousand Muslims in what was then termed Palestine. To claim that the latter have no right to a national identity is ugly and preposterous.

... and someone with actual fact and intelligence comes along, and BAM! We have a real debate again.

 

[Einstimer]

That is absolute rubbish.

National identity and nations are the product of historical circumstances. By the end of the 19th century there were roughly 43 thousand Jews and rouphly 432 thousand Muslims in what was then termed Palestine. To claim that the latter have no right to a national identity is ugly and preposterous.

Their identity wasn't a "Palestinian" one but Jordanian.

And just because there are people occupying a land doesn't mean that it does not belong to its rightful owners. The Israelis were just taking back what belonged to them.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

National identity and nations are the product of historical circumstances. By the end of the 19th century there were roughly 43 thousand Jews and rouphly 432 thousand Muslims in what was then termed Palestine. To claim that the latter have no right to a national identity is ugly and preposterous.

Their identity wasn't a "Palestinian" one but Jordanian.

 

[jazzymom]

This topic is a loaded question. There is no such thing as Palestine. No such thing as Palestinians. Anyone who has an unbiased view of history will know that plain as day. I personally don't waste time debating someone who says otherwise.

The question should be, "Does Israel have a right to defend its own territory?" And the answer is clearly yes.

Yes there is such a place as Palestine. The area was named Palestine by the Romans with the final destruction of the temple and the exile of the Jews from Jerusalem.

The Romans renamed the area Palestine.

The fact is that prior to 1948 the area was Palestine and with the fall of the Ottoman empire the area was carved up into what we see today. The Palestinian territory was in fact supposed to be partitioned into a Jewish and a Palestinian state so both people could have a state.

To say there was never a Palestine or a Palestinian people is simply wrong.

Israel has a right to self defense and to defend its state. The Palestinians have a right to have a state and to determine their future as did the Jews.

 

[Shermana]

Their identity wasn't a "Palestinian" one but Jordanian.

And just because there are people occupying a land doesn't mean that it does not belong to its rightful owners. The Israelis were just taking back what belonged to them.

^^^For the win.

The concept of a "Palestinian" identity is a post-1960s concept. They were called "Southern Syrian Arabs" before that. By their own leaders' admission.

The grand majority of Arabs, including to this day, who lived in the "Palestine" region, historically lived in the "Transjordan" province (which was an Emirate of the "Palestinian region").

Many if not Most of the Arabs in the Jewish sector of "Palestine" migrated there from Egypt, Syria, and the Trans-jordan region AFTER the Zionists arrived in large numbers (and with large amounts of capital), many of them seeking employment from them. I believe the majority of the 430,000 Muslims in the region were in the Trans-Jordan region which became independent from "Palestine" in 1946. (Nominally in 1922).

Churchill put it best "There wouldn't be half as many Arabs here without the Jews".

I like when I see honest people who don't try to submit to PC revisionist pressure.

The Palestinians have a right to have a state and to determine their future as did the Jews.

In Jordan.

 

[Falvlun]

^^^For the win.

The concept of a "Palestinian" identity is a post-1960s concept. They were called "Southern Syrian Arabs" before that. By their own leaders' admission.

The grand majority of Arabs, including to this day, who lived in the "Palestine" region, historically lived in the "Transjordan" province (which was an Emirate of the "Palestinian region").

Many if not Most of the Arabs in the Jewish sector of "Palestine" migrated there from Egypt, Syria, and the Trans-jordan region AFTER the Zionists arrived in large numbers (and with large amounts of capital), many of them seeking employment from them. I believe the majority of the 430,000 Muslims in the region were in the Trans-Jordan region which became independent from "Palestine" in 1946. (Nominally in 1922).

Churchill put it best "There wouldn't be half as many Arabs here without the Jews".

I like when I see honest people who don't try to submit to PC revisionist pressure.
In Jordan.

What does it matter what they used to be called? The fact is that they call themselves Palestinians now (it's not like new national names haven't been assumed before). And regardless of their name, they still exist, and they still have lived on that land for generations. I mean, if they called themselves "South Syrians", would you be like "Oh, okay. I guess you guys are a real people. You can create your country of South Syria now."

 

[Shermana]

That's not what the main point of the post was, it was about how this claim of 430,000 Muslims at the time of the first waves of Zionist settlers mainly applies just to the Emirate (province) of the region known as "Transjordan", and that most "palestinians" in the Jewish sector were in fact emigrants just like the Zionists, so this claim of "land for generations" mainly applies only to the Jordanian side of the fence, and that this separate concept of "Palestinian identity" is in fact a recent invention that is built to create an artificial sense of separation from their Jordanian (and other Arabian) counterparts.

 

[beenie]

That's not what the main point of the post was, it was about how this claim of 430,000 Muslims at the time of the first waves of Zionist settlers mainly applies just to the Emirate (province) of the region known as "Transjordan", and that most "palestinians" in the Jewish sector were in fact emigrants just like the Zionists, so this claim of "land for generations" mainly applies only to the Jordanian side of the fence, and that this separate concept of "Palestinian identity" is in fact a recent invention that is built to create an artificial sense of separation from their Jordanian (and other Arabian) counterparts.

Again, so what? Who gets to decide what a people identify themselves as?

Denying the existence of an entire group of people, on either side, is disrespectful and arrogant, IMO.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

this claim of 430,000 Muslims at the time of the first waves of Zionist settlers mainly applies just to the Emirate (province) of the region known as "Transjordan", and that most "palestinians" in the Jewish sector were in fact emigrants just like the Zionists,

Again, so what? Who gets to decide what a people identify themselves as?

Precisely: according to whom, so what, and what the hell was "the Jewish sector"?

Denying the existence of an entire group of people, on either side, is disrespectful and arrogant, IMO.

... and the type of sick ideology that serves only to justify and perpetuation xenophobic oppression and genocide.

 

[Shermana]

Again, so what? Who gets to decide what a people identify themselves as?

Denying the existence of an entire group of people, on either side, is disrespectful and arrogant, IMO.

You are confusing the concept of "denying the existence of an entire group of people" with denying the concept of an artificial identity that was recently created in the last few decades in order to serve as a vehicle for their agenda for the attempt to fight the Jews and drive them to the Sea and "reclaim Palestine". This concept itself deserves its own thread. Apparently they weren't "Palestinians" yet even under the Jordanian occupation until its last few years. What took so long?

And the Waqf tries its best to deny that the Jews even had a Temple, they resort to destroying Jewish artifacts through "Archaeological digs", what do you call that? That's trying to destroy Jewish history and identity itself, is it not?

And with that, you're ignoring the point I made that most of the Arabs prior to the Zionist movement were in the Transjordan region, which for some reason they declared as a "Separate identity" in the last few years. I think I made it quite clear that Jordanians and "Palestinians" aren't even as different as Swabians, Bavarians and Prussians. There's only one real reason I can see for making this distinction. What do you think it was? Just because they wanted to be different after all those centuries of being "Southern Syrian Arabs"? Therefore, the argument about "Palestinian identity" prior to 1948 seems to want to include Transjordans when it wants to, but then discludes Jordanians as a "Separate identity" when it doesn't benefit them.

There's a LOT to this, and I think I should make a whole thread about this.

With that said, you're right, who gets to decide who makes up a distinct identity? How about I declare myself as the last member of the Lost "Shermanica" Native American tribe, and thus I should get a federally declared Reservation? Why not? If you're going to deny me my affiliation with the Shermanica tribe and my right to secede with a Reservation all to myself, why should I accept someone else who came up with some artificial identity just a few decades ago? Heck, let's allow anyone with a trace of Indian blood to have the right to live on the reservation, if you disagree with this idea, that's XENOPHOBIC BIGOTRY! I mean, who are we to decide that someone with a drop of Cherokee shouldn't get a reservation?

Can you answer the question why the Palestinian identity movement didn't begin until the 1960s? What took so long?

As for Jay's question about what the "Jewish sector" was, I'm not sure if he's completely ignorant of the history of the Palesitnian mandate and if so, I can provide some links to show him the population movements in the region, (which was during the time that Jordan and "Palestine" weren't any more different than Illinois and Indiana, just an Emirate of a province), or if he doesn't understand how the lines were divided at the time due to the settlements and population areas, so perhaps he can clarify.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

National identity and nations are the product of historical circumstances. By the end of the 19th century there were roughly 43 thousand Jews and rouphly 432 thousand Muslims in what was then termed Palestine. To claim that the latter have no right to a national identity is ugly and preposterous.

That's not what the main point of the post was, it was about how this claim of 430,000 Muslims at the time of the first waves of Zionist settlers mainly applies just to the Emirate (province) of the region known as "Transjordan", and that most "palestinians" in the Jewish sector were in fact emigrants just like the Zionists, ...

As for Jay's question about what the "Jewish sector" was, I'm not sure if he's completely ignorant of the history of the Palesitnian mandate and if so, I can provide some links ..

That you would presume to teach anyone history is laughable as evidenced by your reference to the Palestinian mandate ...

Note the above reference to "the end of the 19th century." Why focus on that period?

THE FIRST ALIYAH

Then, between 1882 and 1903, fully 25,000 Jews entered Palestine, the largest single influx since the Spanish Expulsion decree. This upsurge of immigration is usually described as the First Aliya - the first immigration wave - but in fact consisted of two waves, of 1882-94 and 1890-91. Many of the immigrants were consciously Zionist and had come under the influence or auspices of the Chovevei Zion and the Bilu. But many more, probably the majority, were refugees from tsarist oppression, or religionists intent upon spending their years in study and prayer. [source]

Just FYI: the British Mandate for Palestine came three to four decades later ... on September of 1923.