Why is the argument that there were no Palestinians raised?

[Kirran]

You are referring to the arab settelers?

I imagine you know I'm referring to Israeli settlers.

Judea and Samaria Area - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Flankerl]

Palestinians weren't a conquering force, they're an indigenous nationality.

Yes and No. They were a conquering force some time ago. That's the marvellous thing about human history.

Still not as easy as I believe it should be.

Well stop shooting at cars on the highway.
Which reminds me of the big Palestinian tears and their supporters about (i think) Route 443. The road was basically banned for Palestinians after they suicide bombed and snipered the hell out of it.
Obviously it was uncalled for to ban the use of the road. But then again attacks kinda ceased afterwards.

I feel my words are being twisted here.

Good for you.

As for Jews not being allowed in the West Bank, have you heard of the settlers?

Jews aren't allowed by law to enter A and B Zones in the West Bank.
Fun fact: Without the so called division of Hebron Jews wouldn't be able to visit the Me'arat ha-machpela at all because Hebron is not a C Zone.

 

[metis]

A decision made in the heat of the moment when the Jews really did need somewhere to go. That 5/6 of the land has been eroded steadily.

Because the Arabs there would not accept the U.N. decision and attacked Israel. Had they chosen to live in peace, things there today would have been much different, and a separate Palestinian state no doubt would today exist.

I don't think the partitions of India or Yugoslavia were good ideas, but at least they were agreed to by the populace.

Actually they weren't agreed to by a great many, including Gandhi. And how many died in that process of movement? But how many would have died if partitioning wasn't done? In Palestine, the partitioning was to also prevent more bloodshed because both groups were at each other's throats. Had both been willing to live together peacefully, partitioning may not have been done. Hard to say.

A partitioning they did not agree to. If I say I'm partitioning the USA, and all the Jews have to move to some corner of Delaware, would you happily pack up your bag and head off? Assuming, of course, I had the authority to do this.

And how many times and out of how many countries have we been forced to move? And where was the outrage against the countries that forced us out and/or who discriminated against us? And where was the outrage when Hamas and the Palestinian Authority made it official that we could not live in their lands? And where has been the outrage when Hamas still launches the missiles against our civilians? And where is the outrage when Hezbollah attacks?

I'm by no means against Jews being in Israel or Palestine.

I honestly apologise if I've given the impression I oppose the existence of the state of Israel. It is a settled country, with a national identity and culture and so forth, there is no reason it should cease to exist. I only oppose various aspects of its stance on Palestine and Palestinians, and its lack of separation of church and state (synagogue and state?)

Thanks for this. However, the issue of separation of church and state is Israel's issue and no one else's. OTOT, Israel is actually mostly secular anyway. If you get a chance, please go see for yourself-- and I'm not trying to be funny, btw.

As for Jews not being allowed in the West Bank, have you heard of the settlers?

I have long been opposed to the settlements, but changed my mind at least a little bit on that. I feel the settlements around Jerusalem are OK for mainly reasons that I really don't want to get into.

Take care.

 

[Kirran]

Because the Arabs there would not accept the U.N. decision and attacked Israel. Had they chosen to live in peace, things there today would have been much different, and a separate Palestinian state no doubt would today exist.

I think it's a real shame, too. But the past is past.

Actually they weren't agreed to by a great many, including Gandhi. And how many died in that process of movement? But how many would have died if partitioning wasn't done? In Palestine, the partitioning was to also prevent more bloodshed because both groups were at each other's throats. Had both been willing to live together peacefully, partitioning may not have been done. Hard to say.

Very tough decisions, and all the tragedy ensuing was terrible. But again, we deal with the present.

And how many times and out of how many countries have we been forced to move? And where was the outrage against the countries that forced us out and/or who discriminated against us? And where was the outrage when Hamas and the Palestinian Authority made it official that we could not live in their lands? And where has been the outrage when Hamas still launches the missiles against our civilians? And where is the outrage when Hezbollah attacks?

I condemn each and every occasion on which your people have been discriminated against, slandered and exiled from a country. I am against the two Palestinian governments banning Israelis from their land (or is it Jews?) although I understand why such a backlash has occurred. And I'm against the actions of Hamas and Hezbollah.

Thanks for this. However, the issue of separation of church and state is Israel's issue and no one else's. OTOT, Israel is actually mostly secular anyway. If you get a chance, please go see for yourself-- and I'm not trying to be funny, btw.

I don't think that quite makes sense to me. A government should be held accountable by outside parties. Yeah, it is mostly secular, and I think that's great. It's that little bit of non-secularness, and the associated ethnic nationalism, which I'm against.

I would love to, really. I have a friend who goes back to see his family in Jerusalem every summer who's invited me to go along, someday I hope to.

I have long been opposed to the settlements, but changed my mind at least a little bit on that. I feel the settlements around Jerusalem are OK for mainly reasons that I really don't want to get into.

Take care.

OK, we'll leave that for now. You take care too, namaste.

Yes and No. They were a conquering force some time ago. That's the marvellous thing about human history.

True. But they're not now.

Well stop shooting at cars on the highway.
Which reminds me of the big Palestinian tears and their supporters about (i think) Route 443. The road was basically banned for Palestinians after they suicide bombed and snipered the hell out of it.
Obviously it was uncalled for to ban the use of the road. But then again attacks kinda ceased afterwards.

I'm against all of those attacks. But they're hardly some unilateral attack, it's angry youths, motivated by nationalism, Islamism or revenge.

Jews aren't allowed by law to enter A and B Zones in the West Bank.
Fun fact: Without the so called division of Hebron Jews wouldn't be able to visit the Me'arat ha-machpela at all because Hebron is not a C Zone.

But the C zones are the majority of the West Bank, by a good margin. And the B zones are under only partial Palestinian control anyway, the Israeli government is partly running the lives of Palestinians which are by no means under it's jurisdiction.

 

[CMike]

I imagine you know I'm referring to Israeli settlers.

Judea and Samaria Area - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There are no Israeli settlers there since it's their own country.

 

[Kirran]

There are no Israeli settlers there since it's their own country.

They took it, and said it was theirs. Is that all it takes?

Worked for the British Empire, I guess. And the USA during Manifest Destiny. And and and.

 

[Bunyip]

Where in the Balfour declaration does it mention a claim to statehood by anyone besides the Jews?

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people". While it speaks of civil rights and religious rights of all non-Jews, I don't see mention of any right to statehood. Please advise.

Palestine was guaranteed an independant state.

I do belief you're misunderstanding what I posted, and I am actually quite familiar with the general history of Australia, especially since I had a job offering in Australia back in 1969, and I did and have done the research, but had to turn the job down.

Australia has had major "issues" with what the white racists there often call "Abos"

My friend 1969 is a generation ago - I have not heard that word used for decades. Nowadays when parliament sits, or when a new building is opened a ceremony recognising the traditional owners of the land is conducted.

and it wasn't until about two decades ago that the government there actually finally took it upon itself to apologize and try to compensate the harm they did over the centuries. Many Aborigine children were taken away from their parents and "educated" in white run schools to strip away their tradition, and we don't have to go very far back in time to see when this was still being done. A very good movie that deals with this is "Rabbit-Proof Fence", which is based on a true story. However, to be clear, I was already basically familiar with the race issue there before ever seeing the movie.

Mate that movie was set 15 years before Israel was even founded.

BTW, on my application for teaching in Australia, it asked which race I was, and if I had checked off that I was black, I would not have been accepted. A good friend of mine whom worked for a joint American/Australian company whereas he went back and forth between the two countries, told me in 1991 while we were in Israel that race relations in Australia were similar to what we in the States went through in the 1950's.

You need to update your predjudices.

 

[rosends]

Palestine was guaranteed an independant state.

That is, indeed. your assertion. I can't find it supported in the document. Can you? You stated, "My belief is that the Palestinian claim to statehood is exactly as legitimate as that of Israel - the Balfour declaration." and yet that declaration doesn't mention an Arab state.

 

[CMike]

CMike said: ↑
There are no Israeli settlers there since it's their own country.

They took it, and said it was theirs. Is that all it takes?

Worked for the British Empire, I guess. And the USA during Manifest Destiny. And and and.

You are missing a few minor details, such as they took it after Jordan invaded Israel in an unprovoked attack for the purpose of killing all the Jews.

Just minor stuff like that. That territory is now needed because without it Israel is only 9 miles across and not defensible.

The people in the West Bank at that time were Jordanian. They have the option to return back to their homeland.

Hey I got a question. How come the "palestinians" didn't demand a "palestinian state" when they were under Jordanian rule?

 

[Flankerl]

True. But they're not now.

Well let's wait some 200 years. Then the Israeli Jews also aren't an invading force.
Isn't human history fun?

I'm against all of those attacks. But they're hardly some unilateral attack, it's angry youths, motivated by nationalism, Islamism or revenge.

You know every time I read "angry youths" I just have to roll with my eyes.

But the C zones are the majority of the West Bank, by a good margin. And the B zones are under only partial Palestinian control anyway, the Israeli government is partly running the lives of Palestinians which are by no means under it's jurisdiction.

You do realise that most of Area C is in fact the border Area towards Jordan? The only major City there is Jericho.

 

[Kirran]

You are missing a few minor details, such as they took it after Jordan invaded Israel in an unprovoked attack for the purpose of killing all the Jews.

Just minor stuff like that. That territory is now needed because without it Israel is only 9 miles across and not defensible.

Unprovoked's a bit strong. I do think it was unnecessarily aggressive on Jordan's part, by far. But the past is past. And they still took the land from them, rather than just winning the war and letting the Jordanians keep the West Bank.

So make an Israeli-Palestinian Confederation (obviously not really practical right now, but I see something along those lines as the only viable solution in the long term, short of literally killing all the Palestinians, which I am not in favour of).

The people in the West Bank at that time were Jordanian. They have the option to return back to their homeland.

Hey I got a question. How come the "palestinians" didn't demand a "palestinian state" when they were under Jordanian rule?

Well, they didn't want one.

They were more content in an Arab state than they are under a Jewish one. Whether they would have been trying for independence from Jordan by now, maybe. Doesn't matter.

Saying they could have gone back to their homeland doesn't make sense. They were in their homeland, Palestine was their homeland. I was born and brought up in Wales. If Wales is annexed by Ireland, and so no longer in the UK, me leaving to go to England is not me going back to my homeland.

Well let's wait some 200 years. Then the Israeli Jews also aren't an invading force.
Isn't human history fun?

I don't think they are an invading force. I think Israel should continue to exist. I do not think many of the current policies of the Israeli government should continue, because they cause immense suffering.

The PNA often doesn't help, but I think it's up the Israeli government to take major steps towards peace first, by pulling out of the West Bank as much as is feasible, because they're the more powerful entity and they're the aggressor.

You do realise that most of Area C is in fact the border Area towards Jordan? The only major City there is Jericho.

It's still an area governed by Israel with large numbers of Israeli settlers.

 

[metis]

Palestine was guaranteed an independant state.
My friend 1969 is a generation ago - I have not heard that word used for decades. Nowadays when parliament sits, or when a new building is opened a ceremony recognising the traditional owners of the land is conducted. Mate that movie was set 15 years before Israel was even founded.
You need to update your predjudices.

I really don't have the prejudices that you imagine, and I do follow Australian news to a limited extent (BBC). I'm not in any way suggesting there hasn't been significant improvement, as surely there has been, but prejudices die much more slowly and one simply cannot erase the past.

It's interesting that you seem to bristle with what I do know that's been an issue in Australia, but yet you seemingly can't see why we sometimes chafe over undo and imaginary criticism of Israel. Yes, Israel has problems, and no doubt some of the problems have been self-created, but some here quickly point out Israel's problems, real or imaginary, but then turn a blind-eye to the fact that they also have similar problems in their own country, past or present.

 

[Flankerl]

I don't think they are an invading force. I think Israel should continue to exist. I do not think many of the current policies of the Israeli government should continue, because they cause immense suffering.

The PNA often doesn't help, but I think it's up the Israeli government to take major steps towards peace first, by pulling out of the West Bank as much as is feasible, because they're the more powerful entity and they're the aggressor.

Just because you are the Occupier doesn't mean you are the Aggressor.
And pulling out without a proper Peace Treaty will lead to Gaza-Reloaded. It's simply stupid.

It's still an area governed by Israel with large numbers of Israeli settlers.

Most of the Eastern Settlements only exist because of the Military bases. Who kinda have their historic reason to be there.
The bigger settlements are all in the Western part of the West Bank.

 

[Kirran]

Just because you are the Occupier doesn't mean you are the Aggressor.
And pulling out without a proper Peace Treaty will lead to Gaza-Reloaded. It's simply stupid.

Both true.

Continuing settlements will not help the situation.

Most of the Eastern Settlements only exist because of the Military bases. Who kinda have their historic reason to be there.
The bigger settlements are all in the Western part of the West Bank.

Maybe so, but they're still in the West Bank.

 

[Bunyip]

I really don't have the prejudices that you imagine, and I do follow Australian news to a limited extent (BBC). I'm not in any way suggesting there hasn't been significant improvement, as surely there has been, but prejudices die much more slowly and one simply cannot erase the past.

It's interesting that you seem to bristle with what I do know that's been an issue in Australia, but yet you seemingly can't see why we sometimes chafe over undo and imaginary criticism of Israel. Yes, Israel has problems, and no doubt some of the problems have been self-created, but some here quickly point out Israel's problems, real or imaginary, but then turn a blind-eye to the fact that they also have similar problems in their own country, past or present.

The indigenous people in Australia are formally recognised under law as the original owners of the land, this thread is about the claim that the Palestinians did not even exist. Nobody in Australia is making that claim about the aboriginals.

I'm confused at what on earth could have made you imagine that I am somehow responsible for Australian history, I am a migrant. How did you figure that Australia's history, before I was even born somehow is my fault? What's next? Are you going to tell me that I have no right to an opinion because of the way the Saxons invaded Britain a thousand years ago?
I have a moustache, do I have no right to an opinion because Hitler also had a moustache? What is the logic behind your referencing Australian history? I arrived in Australia in 1974 by the way and own no lands.

 

[Bunyip]

That is, indeed. your assertion. I can't find it supported in the document. Can you? You stated, "My belief is that the Palestinian claim to statehood is exactly as legitimate as that of Israel - the Balfour declaration." and yet that declaration doesn't mention an Arab state.

From the Balfour declaration:
"His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

Seems to be clearly recognising the existence of Palestinians in Palestine to me, the legitimacy of the state of Israel is contingent on the understanding that not only do Palestinians exist, but also that the place Israel was to be founded was Palestine. The place you pretend never existed.

 

[rosends]

From the Balfour declaration:
"His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

Seems to be clearly recognising the existence of Palestinians in Palestine to me, the legitimacy of the state of Israel is contingent on the understanding that not only do Palestinians exist, but also that the place Israel was to be founded was Palestine. The place you pretend never existed.

The place existed. It is on maps of the region (in the same way that "New England" exists, "North America" exists and the "Midwest" exists. It had money (which referenced "Eretz Yisrael" on it, the land of Israel), it had a newspaper (The Palestine Post, which became Jerusalem Post and still exists as an Israeli newspaper). The country didn't. The rights being recognized are civil and religious, not national or political. The term "Palestinian" doesn't even appear. Since you are looking at "Palesitinian" as a national marker with political implications, what you are looking for is not to be found in that declaration. There is only one group referenced in terms of "national home." Not two.

 

[Lyndon]

Do you have trouble reading??? The Balfour declaration statement is pretty clear, you can't have a Palestine with no Palestinians, as much as you might like that to be the case!!

 

[rosends]

Do you have trouble reading??? The Balfour declaration statement is pretty clear, you can't have a Palestine with no Palestinians, as much as you might like that to be the case!!

Do you have trouble reading? There is no mention of "Palestinians" in the Balfour Declaration and therefore, you just made the logical argument that Palestine doesn't exist.

 

[CMike]

From the Balfour declaration:
"His Majesty's government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."

Seems to be clearly recognising the existence of Palestinians in Palestine to me, the legitimacy of the state of Israel is contingent on the understanding that not only do Palestinians exist, but also that the place Israel was to be founded was Palestine. The place you pretend never existed.

It's rather irrelevant. It was the UN that partitioned the area, not England.