What Do Palestinians Want?

[RocketJSquirell]

Columbus
Israel was re-established by international treaty in San Remo - at the same time all of the Arab Countries were established. At that time various mandates were created whose goal was the establishment of separate states for separate populations. The Mandate for the Establishment of the Jewish Homeland / Palestinian Mandate called for the Jewish State to be created in the area which is now Israel (including Judea and Samaria - incorrectly referred to as the west bank - and Gaza), Jordan, the Golan, and portions of Southern Lebanon. Those were the legally binding borders of Israel. Because Israel has signed a peace treaty with Jordan, Israel's legal eastern border is the river Jordan. As you can see, Israel has given up quite a bit of land to Arab aggression which has been encouraged and fostered by supposed allies of Israel who have little or no respect for law, treaties, or anything else.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Columbus
Israel was re-established by international treaty in San Remo - at the same time all of the Arab Countries were established.

And the Arab vote was what?

 

[Shusha]

And the Arab vote was what?

Why should Arabs get a "vote" on whether or not the Jewish people should have self-determination on their ancestral lands? Do the Jewish people get a "vote" on the establishment of Syria, Lebanon, Turkey, Iraq and Jordan? Should the Jewish people of those territories have fought and resisted the formation of those nations? Why or why not?

But yes, the Arab leaders were involved in the discussions at San Remo. The whole idea that the formation of a Jewish national homeland was some secret surprise dumped on Arabs at the last minute is another false attitude used to deny the legitimacy of the Jewish State.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Why should Arabs get a "vote" on whether or not the Jewish people should have self-determination on their ancestral lands?

Because it was, arguably, never solely their ancestral land, and because Jews had been a minority in Palestine since the 5th century.

But your attitude is telling (and disgusting): after all, what rights should Palestinians have? ​

 

[Shusha]

Because it was, arguably, never solely their ancestral land, and because Jews had been a minority in Palestine for nearly 2 millennia. But your attitude is telling: after all, what rights should Palestinians have?

You are, again, making assumptions about my beliefs. I believe that BOTH the Jewish people and the Palestinian people should have national self-determination over a portion of the territory. I believe these are inherent, humanitarian, legal rights that can not be delegitimized or stripped away. I am the one arguing for the equality of BOTH. Others here, including you, continue to argue against the legitimacy of the Jewish State and are the ones who have a double standard.

The Jewish people have been ethnically cleansed from their ancestral territory (which is why they were a minority). Do you believe this is a valid and morally correct method of transferring sovereignty rights or the rights to self-determination? Why or why not?

 

[Shusha]

I have NEVER argued on this board against the legitimacy of Palestinian rights (because I believe they have those rights). In contrast, many on this thread alone have argued continually against the very legitimacy of a Jewish State, including yourself. Why is the belief that the Jewish people ALSO have rights so offensive?

I have been told I am an animal and should be exterminated. And you have the nerve to call ME disgusting.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

You are, again, making assumptions about my beliefs. I believe that BOTH the Jewish people and the Palestinian people should have national self-determination over a portion of the territory.

Whine less.

I believe that BOTH the Jewish people and the Palestinian people should have national self-determination over a portion of the territory.

No, you don't. Self-determination implies more than statehood; it implies the right to self-determine. When you imply that Palestinians had no right to vote on what part of Palestine would be placed under Israeli control you are, in fact, denying their right to self-determination.

The Jewish people have been ethnically cleansed from their ancestral territory (which is why they were a minority). Do you believe this is a valid and morally correct method of transferring sovereignty rights or the rights to self-determination? Why or why not?

Native Americans were purged from their ancestral lands. Do you believe this is a valid and morally correct method of transferring sovereignty rights or the rights to self-determination? More recently, the Palestinians were purged from their ancestral lands. Do you believe this is a valid and morally correct method of transferring sovereignty rights or the rights to self-determination?

The (intractable) problem is not "who deserves self-determination" but, rather, what does one do when two parties, each with some historical legitimacy, claim the right to self determine the same land. Your chauvinist answer? "Why should Arabs get a vote?"

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I have been told I am an animal and should be exterminated. And you have the nerve to call ME disgusting.

If you are addressing that to me you are clearly going off the deep end and distorting my position in a way that is disgraceful. Again, for the record, I am a Zionist and have been an active Zionist since before you were born.

 

[columbus]

Why should Arabs get a "vote" on whether or not the Jewish people should have self-determination on their ancestral lands?

So, it really is about using ancient texts as a property deed.

When some European colonialists do something you like it's legally binding, when it's something you don't it isn't.
I see no justification for Europeans to draw any borders in such places. Nor do I think a tiny handful of Jewish residents for a thousand years maintained their right to a modern sovereign nation.
I do think Israel now has that right because they actually built a country worth defending and the Palestinian people did not. Blaming that failure on the Zionists is ridiculous.
Tom

 

[FearGod]

feargod - I do not go to hate sites so I will not be watching or reading whatever you wish me to at "ifamericansknew.com". I do not believe in conspiracy theories. I stick to actual facts. Try it some time. It will be good for your soul.

One more thing, how is it that you came to be so closed minded, how is it that you came to be such a hater?

You hate to read and hear facts.

 

[Akivah]

Ack. Israel was not "originally drawn" in 1947. The "borders" have never expanded. They have only contracted.

Don't you realize that by giving away the Gaza strip and the Sinai peninsula that Israel only looks smaller. Like a TARDIS, it is bigger on the inside. And by these land give-aways, continues to make itself bigger on the inside.

 

[Shusha]

No, you don't. Self-determination implies more than statehood; it implies the right to self-determine. When you imply that Palestinians had no right to vote on what part of Palestine would be placed under Israeli control you are, in fact, denying their right to self-determination.

Native Americans were purged from their ancestral lands. Do you believe this is a valid and morally correct method of transferring sovereignty rights or the rights to self-determination? More recently, the Palestinians were purged from their ancestral lands. Do you believe this is a valid and morally correct method of transferring sovereignty rights or the rights to self-determination?

The (intractable) problem is not "who deserves self-determination" but, rather, what does one do when two parties, each with some historical legitimacy, claim the right to self determine the same land. Your chauvinist answer? "Why should Arabs get a vote?"

In your rush to assume ill intent on my part, you have entirely missed my point. People don't get to VOTE on whether or not other people have inherent human rights. That is why they are called "rights". My position is, and always has been, that BOTH parties have these rights on some portion of the territory, and which portions must be determined by negotiation between the two peoples. Arabs Muslim Palestinians do not have the right to vote whether or not the Jewish people have rights AND the Jewish people do not have the right to vote on whether or not the Arab Muslim Palestinians have rights.

And OF COURSE ethnic cleansing is not a valid and morally correct method of transferring sovereignty or rights to self-determination. Duh.

Once again, I am arguing for both parties rights. Are you?

 

[Shusha]

If you are addressing that to me you are clearly going off the deep end and distorting my position in a way that is disgraceful. Again, for the record, I am a Zionist and have been an active Zionist since before you were born.

I was simply pointing out that you label me disgusting for believing in equal rights is nonsensical when compared to others on this thread who deny those rights and to one individual in particular who believes both you and I are animals and should be exterminated. It seems lop-sided.

 

[leibowde84]

If the Palestinians will have freedom in their lands and high quality of life then the conflict will end forever.

So, you are in favor of the Jewish Homeland, as long as the Palestinians have one of their own?

 

[Shusha]

So, it really is about using ancient texts as a property deed.

No, its not. No more than Tibet, or Catalan, or First Nations peoples, or Kurds use ancient texts as a property deed. Its about being indigenous to the territory and having ethnic and cultural ties to the land.

And I have absolutely no issue with your premise about unscrambling eggs. That is a view you apply consistently to all parties. My posts on this thread are addressing people who hold double standards.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I was simply pointing out that you label me disgusting for believing in equal rights is nonsensical when compared to others on this thread who deny those rights and to one individual in particular who believes both you and I are animals and should be exterminated. It seems lop-sided.

You were simply pointing out that ...

I have been told I am an animal and should be exterminated.

... and that is an outrageous lie.

 

[Shusha]

.... and that is an outrageous lie.

You didn't see the post in question? Or you don't believe the post says what it says?

 

[columbus]

No, its not. No more than Tibet, or Catalan, or First Nations peoples, or Kurds use ancient texts as a property deed. Its about being indigenous to the territory and having ethnic and cultural ties to the land.

All of those situations are the results of old wrongs. By comparison, the Zionist claims are extremely weak. The strongest are the First Nations. They still possess treaties signed by the USA government giving them clear rights to a bunch of the USA. They were the victims of genocide and the records still exist as well.
But you don't see any efforts from world powers or the UN to create a homeland for the Iroquois.
My understanding is that the Kurds are in much the same position, although I am far less familiar with that.
But what makes Israel a human rights issue and not the Iroquois? Why does their sentimental attachment to a chunk of real estate trump the people who were living there?
Tom

 

[RocketJSquirell]

And the Arab vote was what?

The Arabs were present and represented in San Remo - They agreed to all - let me underline this - ALL - of the various mandates. They even spoke in favor of the Jewish State. So, yes, indeed, the Arabs had a vote and they voted YES to the establishment of the Jewish State. It was only later that they changed their minds. The conflict is all about the Arab's change of mind.

 

[RocketJSquirell]

All of those situations are the results of old wrongs. By comparison, the Zionist claims are extremely weak. The strongest are the First Nations. They still possess treaties signed by the USA government giving them clear rights to a bunch of the USA. They were the victims of genocide and the records still exist as well.
But you don't see any efforts from world powers or the UN to create a homeland for the Iroquois.
My understanding is that the Kurds are in much the same position, although I am far less familiar with that.
But what makes Israel a human rights issue and not the Iroquois? Why does their sentimental attachment to a chunk of real estate trump the people who were living there?
Tom

Let me try to unravel that lump of mis-information.
1. The people living in Israel for 4,000 years were and are the Jews.
2. The Kurds have a harder case to make, mainly because they chose not to participate in the San Remo conferences. (This is why their lands were divided up between the newly formed Arab countries)
3. Jews are the native population of Israel
4. Kurds are the native population of the Kurdish regions
5. Other peoples - mostly invading Arabs - also live in Israel and in the Kurdish regions.
6. The rights of the invading Arab peoples do not trump those of the native Jewish and Kurdish populations. Both Israel and the nascent Kurdish state(s) allow for minority rights. This is in contract to the Arab states which largely do not allow for minority rights. In the case of the Arabs who call themselves Palestinians they specifically forbid the presence of Jews in any territory they may control, despite the fact that they dispossessed the Jews of their lands in 1948 (when each and every Jews living in Judea and Samaria, Gaza, and the portion of Jerusalem which illegally came to be occupied by Jordan - you know - the Jewish Quarter - and the City of David - was either killed or ethnically cleansed)