Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Israel Independence Day!....Whats your thought?
Options
Comments
-
What information is false? Prove it.
What hatred? Prove it.
Did I excuse any action of Hamas? Oh wait I didn't. Utter nonsense.
Oh and provide a single shred of my indoctrination. Oh wait, you can't, there is none, since its a complete falsehood.
What Jordanians and Egyptians in Gaza and the West Bank? There are none. That statement is factually incorrect, there Palestinians. Also, the whole population didn't dance in the streets.
You once again throw baseless accusations and haven't backed up a single one of them. Your nonsense knows no bounds, pure and simple.
More nonsensical baseless accusations, and wild claims of indoctrination. You argument, doesn't have a leg to stand on.
Amazing that we see them almost everyday celebrating the death of Israeli's please people here and not gullible...
Again the two areas contain Jordanians and Egyptians.
Also I have physically being there watching them celebrate bloodshed and their apparent Martyrdom, oh sorry murder!
And 90% of people in the two area's actually hold passports from both countries, the term Palestinian is a buzz term invented in 1967...
But I shall not continue this childish tit for tat as it is clear you do not know what you are talking about, another Wikipedia internet expert methinks!
0 -
Gurion was the first Prime Minister of Israel, kinda trumps the grand mufti, who was one guy. Gurion lead the Zionist movement as well. Big difference don't you think? The leader of the Zionist movement who intended to drive out the Palestinians as opposed to a man who fled to Germany and was responsible for his own actions. What he did wasn't the fault of the Palestinians.
Also, the Mufti wasn't leader of the Arab forces.
So? How is this the fault of the Palestinians? Oh wait it wasn't. It was the fault of the Mufti. The quote I provide are from people directly involved in the events of Palestine and the leaders of the Zionists.
They weren't allied to him actually. He was a minor figure who didn't lead or run anything at that point. Nice try to make him out to be more than he really is. The Egyptians shouldn't have given him refuge, but then that still isn't the fault of the Palestinians. Its amazing your trying to provide excuses for what the Zionists did.
The quotes I use are from people who were leaders of the Zionist movement and directly behind the Ethnic cleansing. Hell here is another one:
He later became Prime Minister and tried to make peace and was murdered for his efforts. You do see the difference of the people I quote don't you? These are people who were Prime Ministers and government figures in Israel. You provide one guy, who while a terrible human being, was responsible for his own crimes, crimes which are not the fault of the Palestinians.
1. The Mufti was not just "one guy"... he was much more than that, and I think you know it:
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_mandate_grand_mufti.php
2. Would you consider the Hamas charter be a good enough example of very high ranking Palestinian leaders showing their true intents and how they want to ethnically cleanse Israel of all the Jews in it?
I dare you to show me a current (not from 60 or 40 years ago), official (written by a government member - not by a fanatic Rabbi or settler who has no political power) Israeli government policy document that even comes close to the level of violent threat or hate and religious fanaticism which can be found in the Hamas charter.
The Hamas charter actually shows the true purposes of Hamas and thus reflect on all Palestinians - since Hamas are the current leaders of the Palestinians:
"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."
"The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him! This will not apply to the Gharqad, which is a Jewish tree (cited by Bukhari and Muslim)"
"The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. "
"There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."
"After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying."
Links:
http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm
http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/...s/charter.html0 -
munchester29 wrote: »1. The Mufti was not just "one guy"... he was much more than that, and I think you know it:
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_mandate_grand_mufti.php
From your link:Implicated in the [1920] disturbances was a political adventurer named Haj Amin al Husseini. Haj Amin, was sentenced by a British court to fifteen years hard labor. Conveniently allowed to escape by the police, he was a fugitive in Syria. Shortly after, the British then allowed him to return to Palestine where, despite the opposition of the muslim High Council who regarded him as a hoodlum, Haj Amin was appointed by the British High Commissioner as Grand Mufti of Jerusalem for life. [P. 22]
Look at the part in bold. He isn't as important as he is being made out to be and there was opposition to him by the Palestinians at the time.
He wasn't an elected leader, like Ben Gurion. Who was the leader of the Zionist movement.
Your right, one guy was the wrong word for me to use to describe him. He is however, not as important as Gurion and Rabin and others. Your own article also show he wasn't exactly liked by all.
However, your right he is more important than I taught. Of course I didn't know some of those facts, so thanks for that. Learn something new everyday.munchester29 wrote: »2. Would you consider the Hamas charter be a good enough example of very high ranking Palestinian leaders showing their true intents and how they want to ethnically cleanse Israel of all the Jews in it?
Where have defended Hamas once in this thread? Where have I denied that they are terrorist?
It should be noted that Israel had no issue backing Hamas earlier in it existence.
Also, Israel actually did ethnically cleanse Palestinians. Regardless of what Hamas want to do, that is a fact.
One of the main reasons I provided the quotes is that quite a few people (including yourself in an earlier thread), deny the ethnic cleansing of Palestine took place. I am not denying the crimes of any other groups involved in the conflict. I think thats a very important point. Hamas are foul group of people, no doubt about that.
Still I am not denying any of there crimes. Several people here have denied the crimes of Zionists, most notably the ethnic cleansing of Palestine.munchester29 wrote: »I dare you to show me a current (not from 60 or 40 years ago), official (written by a government member - not by a fanatic Rabbi or settler who has no political power) Israeli government policy document that even comes close to the level of violent threat or hate and religious fanaticism which can be found in the Hamas charter.
Israel (the government) actions are better, than any words I can provide. See some of the other threads here for an example.
Look at the news, plenty of examples there. Who needs words, when Jewish only roads, apartheid walls, racists laws, occupations, colonialism, and more, tell the story just fine.
However, once again my argument has to do with the events of 1948, as this thread is about Israels independence. Most of you points here aren't rebuttals to what I am talking about at all. Rather a transparent attempt to try and change the topic.
Still have a look at some of the stuff Avigdor Lieberman (elected to the Israeli Parliament):From Lieberman And The Palestinian “demographic threat”
...........................
The first sign came in October with the addition to the cabinet of Avigdor Lieberman, leader of a party that espouses the ethnic cleansing not only of Palestinians in the occupied territories (an unremarkable platform for an Israeli party) but of Palestinian citizens too, through land swaps that would exchange their areas for the illegal Jewish settlements in the West Bank.
Lieberman is not just any cabinet minister; he has been appointed deputy prime minister with responsibility for the “strategic threats” that face Israel. In that role, he will be able to determine what issues are to be considered threats and thereby shape the public agenda for next few years. The “problem” of Israel’s Palestinian citizens is certain to be high on his list.
Lieberman has been widely presented as a political maverick, akin to the notorious racist Rabbi Meir Kahane, whose Kach party was outlawed in the late 1980s. That is a gross misunderstanding: Lieberman is at the very heart of the country’s rightwing establishment and will almost certainly be a candidate for prime minister in future elections, as Israelis drift ever further to the right.
Unlike Kahane, Lieberman has cleverly remained within the Israeli political mainstream while pushing its agenda to the very limits of what it is currently possible to say. Kadima and Labor urgently want unilateral separation from the Palestinians but are shy to spell out, both to their own domestic constituency and the international community, what separation will entail.
.............
Click here for the rest
Then there is this recent gem:Israeli minister warns of Palestinian 'holocaust'
"The more Qassam [rocket] fire intensifies and the rockets reach a longer range, they will bring upon themselves a bigger shoah because we will use all our might to defend ourselves," Matan Vilnai, Israel's deputy defence minister, told army radio.munchester29 wrote: »The Hamas charter actually shows the true purposes of Hamas and thus reflect on all Palestinians - since Hamas are the current leaders of the Palestinians:
"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."
"The prophet, prayer and peace be upon him, said: The time will not come until Muslims will fight the Jews (and kill them); until the Jews hide behind rocks and trees, which will cry: O Muslim! there is a Jew hiding behind me, come on and kill him! This will not apply to the Gharqad, which is a Jewish tree (cited by Bukhari and Muslim)"
"The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Moslem generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up. "
"There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."
"After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion", and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying."
Links:
http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm
http://www.palestinecenter.org/cpap/...s/charter.html
Israel elected the mass murderer Ariel Sharon. Both sides have chosen some really horrible leaders.Israel: Sharon Investigation Urged
The Kahan Commission (named after the President of the Israeli Supreme Court) that investigated the massacre in 1983 concluded that “Minister of Defense [Sharon] bears personal responsibility” and should “draw the appropriate personal conclusions arising out of the defects revealed with regard to the manner in which he discharged the duties of his office.” The commission recommended that Prime Minister Menachem Begin remove Sharon from office if he did not resign. Sharon did resign as minister of defense, though he subsequently assumed other cabinet positions. Annexes of the commission report have not yet been made public, and it is not known if they contain additional information specific to Sharon´s involvement.
Even with the report, he got elected.
Also, as I pointed out earlier, Israel had no problem funding Hamas back in the day. Odd isn't it?0 -
Amazing that we see them almost everyday celebrating the death of Israeli's please people here and not gullible...
Everyday? Thats hyperbole and thats putting it nicely.Again the two areas contain Jordanians and Egyptians.
No it doesn't there called Palestinians. You are quite simply being factually inaccurate. There called Palestinians by the UN, USA, Europe and even Israel.
Also I have physically being there watching them celebrate bloodshed and their apparent Martyrdom, oh sorry murder!
Did I deny it happens? No I didn't.
And 90% of people in the two area's actually hold passports from both countries, the term Palestinian is a buzz term invented in 1967...
They don't actually. If that was the case, they could easily move between Gaza and Egypt.
The term existed before then, hence the Palestinian mandate.But I shall not continue this childish tit for tat as it is clear you do not know what you are talking about, another Wikipedia internet expert methinks!
Nonsense. I have linked major news sites, human rights websites and books. So once again your simply wrong.
You make several wild claims and have yet to back a single one up. Your hardly in a position to throw such wild accusations at anyone.
Also, you haven't backed up any of yours accusations against me of indoctrination, and hatred etc.0 -
.net is banned for a week for continuing to personalise the debate after being specifically warned not to.0
-
Advertisement
-
Ok mention has been made here of Palestinians celebrating when they score what is in their eyes a victory. This a non-thing. The only reasons Israelis don't celebrate as such is because they are defending themselves and gaining nothing, where as the Palestinian extremists think they are. So thats not really a point.
Also this thing of there being no such things as Palestinians. Yeah one could argue that there are no such thing as Irish people, one could call them "Celts", "Gaels", "Anglo-Gaels" etc. But we can all agree such naming is ridiculous. Even if they weren't Palestinians by ethnicity they are Palestinians by virtue of being citizens of the state of Palestine. Demographically, there is no such ethnic group as Northern Irish, but politically there is.0 -
.net wrote:As for the people here from Syria (Invaded Lebanon lately, blown up any Lebanese Ministers, Fund Terrorism (Hezbollah for example), Oppress the Lebanese people and actually also Palestinians in the camps in Lebanon.
Thank you for noticing, I am from Damascus, Syria and proud of it :cool: ...none of the accusations listed above are true (none proven). with the exception ofcourse of funding Hizbullah. While America pride itself for funding Israel, Syria feels the same about funding/ supporting Hizbullah.
Again the old cliché....you either support Israel or Terrorism...typical American logic of: "your either with us or against us" ... whish is commonly used to polarize situations and force a group to either become allies or to accept the consequences as being deemed an enemy..net wrote:It seems that two dominant people in this thread Wes and Suff are supporters of terrorism if so please do it elsewhere.
In this case I would happly be against..net wrote:the term Palestinian is a buzz term invented in 1967...
:rolleyes: yet again....
Palestine (from Greek: Παλαιστίνη. Compare Latin: Palaestina; Hebrew: פלשתינה Palestina; Arabic: فلسطين Filasṭīn, Falasṭīn, Filisṭīn) is the name which is used to describe the land or the geographic region between the Mediterranean Sea and the river Jordan.
In early archeological textual reference to the territory of "Palestine" is found in the Merneptah Stele, dated c. 1200 BCE, containing a recount of an egyptian king (named Merneptah) victories in the land of Canaan mentioning towns such as Gezer, Ashkelon and Yanoam all mentioned using a hieroglyphic determinative that indicates a nomad people, rather than a state.
Note:
Philistia comprised of five city states: Gaza, Ashkelon, Ashdod on the coast and Ekron, and Gath.
The Philistines dwelt in cities and controlled much of the coast, and the term 'Palestine' is cognate with the word Philistine,That area was known in Greek sources from the mid 5th century BCE as Palaistina. When the Romans defeated the Jewish rebellion of 67-70 CE, and merged the province of Judea with Galilee, Samaria and Idumaea, the name Palaestina was applied to the newly formed larger unit.
*Source: Wikipedia serach under the name "Palestine", and from palestinehistory.com
In closing, .net Please before posting any personal attacks, incorrect information trying to intimidate people read a bit on the subject. It would help you more than me. everyone here is trying to establish a good debatable ground with solid information.
My issue with Israel is a political one and not ethnic in any shape or form.0 -
Suff, please attribute and source that text you copied & pasted, thanks.0
-
1. Israel has been there for 60 years and will be there for many more years to come.
2. A two state solution loosely based on 1967 borders is the only feasible outcome.
These two facts are very obvious to me and (I hope) to most people.
Surely what would be most advantageous is not re-hashing all of the arguments about 'terrorism', 'apartheid', 'colonialism' and whatever other labels people wish to throw around to justify their firmly entrenched positions but rather meaningful discussion of how to achieve this two-state solution in as fair a manner as possible.
Funnily enough, this is what is NEVER discussed in these threads which usually just descend into the usual suspects slinging accusations at each other from the lofty heights of their moral superiority. Maybe because people are more comfortable doing this than facing the practicalities of building the two-state solution?0 -
El Stuntman wrote: »1. Israel has been there for 60 years and will be there for many more years to come.
Of course it here to stay, but there should be no myths as to how it came about.El Stuntman wrote: »2. A two state solution loosely based on 1967 borders is the only feasible outcome.
These two facts are very obvious to me and (I hope) to most people.
Certainly, I think most people would see that.El Stuntman wrote: »Surely what would be most advantageous is not re-hashing all of the arguments about 'terrorism', 'apartheid', 'colonialism' and whatever other labels people wish to throw around to justify their firmly entrenched positions but rather meaningful discussion of how to achieve this two-state solution in as fair a manner as possible.
The thread is about Israel creation as opposed to a discussion on the 2 state solution. So discussing the event of 1948 is appropriate. Especially as so many would rather we don't discuss it at all. In fact quite a few people, were basically saying we shouldn't mention bad things on Israel birthdayEl Stuntman wrote: »Funnily enough, this is what is NEVER discussed in these threads which usually just descend into the usual suspects slinging accusations at each other from the lofty heights of their moral superiority. Maybe because people are more comfortable doing this than facing the practicalities of building the two-state solution?
None of us here are actually involved in peace negotiations btw.
Also, this thread was about talking about the creation of the state of Israel in the first place. Not a discussion of a 2 state solution.
I have yet to see anyone start a thread on the practicalities of a 2 state solution. Perhaps you should create one if you want to talk about that topic.
Also, there has been discussion on the 2 state solution in this thread. It was mostly about what was offered/not offered the Palestinians.0 -
Advertisement
-
El Stuntman wrote: »1. Israel has been there for 60 years and will be there for many more years to come.
I disagree, Israel survival is linked closely to the palastinine people, instead of addressing these issues they tend to brush them under the term "Terrorsim", Read below.El Stuntman wrote: »2. A two state solution loosely based on 1967 borders is the only feasible outcome.
A two state solution is'nt the best way to solve this problem. the Israeli state have full control over the water reservoirs located in the westbank (Energey & water are major issues for Israel, Link) and by having the two state it would cut off Israel's access to the supply (do you see the likelihood of them agreeing to this?) and don't forget that most of the occupied territories are full of Israeli settlements which currently being expanding regardless to any international condemnations (including the US). you also have the major issue of the 4.25 million palestine refugees scatared across the globe, they have a right to return to their home land...Israel has a major issue with this and have been set a ferocious fight trying to deny their right by pressuring neighbouring states (Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Eygpt) to contain these refugees and give them citizenship. before anyone comment on this...by doing so the refugees would lose the right to their homeland. A plan can only be described as to remove /wipe the palestinian identity of the land. this is one of Israel's goals.
The demographic bulid of Israel is poor compared to the fast growing demographic of the occupied territories. Israel will change regardless of its efforts to stay a Jewish state.
To solve these problems, Israel and the occupied territories would have to merge into a single state where its citizens would have full rights regardless of their religion (Muslim, Christain or Jew). Thats the only solution in my view.0 -
A two state solution is'nt the best way to solve this problem. the Israeli state have full control over the water reservoirs located in the westbank (Energey & water are major issues for Israel, Link) and by having the two state it would cut off Israel's access to the supply (do you see the likelihood of them agreeing to this?) and don't forget that most of the occupied territories are full of Israeli settlements which currently being expanding regardless to any international condemnations (including the US). you also have the major issue of the 4.25 million palestine refugees scatared across the globe, they have a right to return to their home land...Israel has a major issue with this and have been set a ferocious fight trying to deny their right by pressuring neighbouring states (Lebanon, Syria, Jordan and Eygpt) to contain these refugees and give them citizenship. before anyone comment on this...by doing so the refugees would lose the right to their homeland. A plan can only be described as to remove /wipe the palestinian identity of the land. this is one of Israel's goals.
To solve this problem, Israel and the occupied territories would have to merge into a single state where its citizens would have full rights regardless of their religion (Muslim, Christain or Jew). Thats the only solution in my view.
I find this very interesting Suff. You're Syrian aren't you? Is this a commonly held view across the Middle East? It's interesting that Wes (who I think is Pakistani, please correct me if I'm wrong) holds the view that the two state solution is the way forward.
Have you any links as to the opinion of the famous 'Arab Street' on this matter? I would be genuinely fascinated to see results.
I can't see a single state solution ever being imposed on Israel by any means other than force of arms. Do you seriously think that Israelis would ever vote for this?0 -
El Stuntman wrote: »I find this very interesting Suff. You're Syrian aren't you? Is this a commonly held view across the Middle East? It's interesting that Wes (who I think is Pakistani, please correct me if I'm wrong) holds the view that the two state solution is the way forward.
I am Irish. My parents are Kashmiri (from the Pakistan controlled side).
As for a 2 state solution. If Israel offer a proper one, I see no reason why it wouldn't work. However Suff does point out some major issues it faces. The 2 state solution won't be an easy thing to do. Still it is possible.
Having said that a 1 state solution where everyone lives in a single secular state, would also work imho. Its however face a lot of different problems to the 2 state solution, but I think either is achievable. Having said that if Israel continues with the colonies, it could destroy a 2 state solutions viability, in fact I think there very close to doing so (i am pretty sure I said this here before), which would make a 1 state solution the only viable one.
Israel basically has the cards on this one. The worst the Palestinians can do to a 2 state solution is delay it, but Israel can put the nail in its coffin.El Stuntman wrote: »I can't see a single state solution ever being imposed on Israel by any means other than force of arms. Do you seriously think that Israelis would ever vote for this?
Well, if the Palestinians turned themselves into a civil rights movement, they could earn Israel the worlds ire and become like South Africa. The 1 state solution is achievable without firing a single shot.From Haaretz:
"If the day comes when the two-state solution collapses, and we face a South African-style struggle for equal voting rights (also for the Palestinians in the territories), then, as soon as that happens, the State of Israel is finished," Prime Minister Ehud Olmert told Haaretz Wednesday, the day the Annapolis conference ended in an agreement to try to reach a Mideast peace settlement by the end of 2008.
Something like the above is real possibility. In fact for the Palestinians, it would be the best solution.
Basically, either solution that bring justice for both sides, is fine with me.0 -
I am Irish. My parents are Kashmiri (from the Pakistan controlled side).
sorry, I read somewhere about you potentially visiting relatives in Pakistan and assumed your were Pakistani.As for a 2 state solution. If Israel offer a proper one, I see no reason why it wouldn't work. However Suff does point out some major issues it faces. The 2 state solution won't be an easy thing to do. Still it is possible.
Having said that a 1 state solution where everyone lives in a single secular state, would also work imho. Its however face a lot of different problems to the 2 state solution, but I think either is achievable. Having said that if Israel continues with the colonies, it could destroy a 2 state solutions viability, in fact I think there very close to doing so (i am pretty sure I said this here before), which would make a 1 state solution the only viable one.
I agree that the colonies have to go, most Israelis seem to favour this option also if it guarantees peace.
The Gazan colonies have gone so there is precedent, obviously the scale of the West Bank colonies (Hebron etc) is quite different. I can see some kind of land swap arrangement being proposed here (not getting into the rights/wrongs of this, it just seems like a logical solution. It happened here after all with the Border Commission).0 -
El Stuntman wrote: »sorry, I read somewhere about you potentially visiting relatives in Pakistan and assumed your were Pakistani.
NP, I have relatives who moved to Pakistan proper from Kashmir. So easy mistake to make.El Stuntman wrote: »I agree that the colonies have to go, most Israelis seem to favour this option also if it guarantees peace.
The problem is the colonists. Will they be willing to move. Thats another potential problem.El Stuntman wrote: »The Gazan colonies have gone so there is precedent, obviously the scale of the West Bank colonies (Hebron etc) is quite different. I can see some kind of land swap arrangement being proposed here (not getting into the rights/wrongs of this, it just seems like a logical solution. It happened here after all with the Border Commission).
Well, its possible, but keeping some of colonies would results in Palestine being more of a Bantustan, than an actual country. They need to offer them a proper state and keep the colonies would prevent this imho. I think that mos of the colonies will have to go to give the Palestinians a proper state that can sustain itself.
Maybe some can be kept if equal quality land is offered in return, but it would have to be fair and equitable trade.
Also, regarding refugees, at a very bare minimum, Israel will have to accept responsibility to what happened to them and will have to pay reparations if they choose not to return. I don't see Israel doing that, and thats the very minimum that the refugee's have the right to demand.0 -
El Stuntman wrote: »I find this very interesting Suff. You're Syrian aren't you?
I am indeed a proud Damascene and consider myself Irish as well :cool:El Stuntman wrote: »Is this a commonly held view across the Middle East? It's interesting that Wes (who I think is Pakistani, please correct me if I'm wrong) holds the view that the two state solution is the way forward.
I can only state my personal view however the general public in Syria (hope the rest of the world also) see that the only solution is to grant the palastinine people their full rights. this being the One State solution IMO.El Stuntman wrote: »Have you any links as to the opinion of the famous 'Arab Street' on this matter? I would be genuinely fascinated to see results.
I'm not aware of any medium to brodcast the "famous Arab Street" views, sadly the only opinions are the ones you know of, thank the media for this one.
Funny...Israel imposed its existence by a force of arms!..anyway like I've said, I think Israel will have to face this at some stage and 'Yes' I can see the general Israeli public having a vote on the subject since it concerns their survival. Israel is changing, their labour force consists mainly of Palestiniennes, the demographic structure of the state and deteriorating relationships with nabouring states.El Stuntman wrote: »I can't see a single state solution ever being imposed on Israel by any means other than force of arms. Do you seriously think that Israelis would ever vote for this?
I've pointed this out before...Israel had 60+ years with the aid of the major powers of the world to establish peace and security and it failed to achieve it due to its agressive policies.
That's my view.0 -
I can only state my personal view however the general public in Syria (hope the rest of the world also) see that the only solution is to grant the palastinine people their full rights. this being the One State solution IMO...Funny...Israel imposed its existence by a force of arms!..anyway like I've said, I think Israel will have to face this at some stage
I can't see Israel ever becoming just another Arab state with a jewish minority being squeezed out of existence by a muslim majority (that's basically what a "one state solution" implies). Trying to push Israel down that road would be liable to end in a disaster for everyone IMO.wes wrote:and will have to pay reparations if they choose not to return.
Their returning would pretty much mean the end of the Israeli state also (see above).
It'll probably be up to the rest of the world to foot most of the reparation bill for the non returning refugees in such a final settlement (if such a thing ever occurs). I think the US should pay the lion's share.0 -
fly_agaric wrote: »Their returning would pretty much mean the end of the Israeli state also (see above).
The people would still be there btw. The Zionist project would have ended, but everyone would need to learn to get along.
As I pointed out, if this happens it will in likelihood due to Israels own actions. They have the capability of putting the nail in the 2 state solution. Palestinians can delay it at the very worst.
Of course if the Palestinians do as Olmert so helpfully suggested, then there will be no other solution then.fly_agaric wrote: »It'll probably be up to the rest of the world to foot most of the reparation bill for the non returning refugees in such a final settlement (if such a thing ever occurs). I think the US should pay the lion's share.
Well Israel should foot the bill, not anyone else. Its there mess and they should be held responsible for it. However, it will probably be paid by the US either way, which I can't say bothers me, as they haven't helped the situation at all.0 -
This is going to have to happen irrespective of whatever solution is devised. No resolution is going to last if either side cannot learn to live with the other. In fact, no resolution is going to be possible UNTIL both sides learn to live with each other.The Zionist project would have ended, but everyone would need to learn to get along.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
This is going to have to happen irrespective of whatever solution is devised. No resolution is going to last if either side cannot learn to live with the other. In fact, no resolution is going to be possible UNTIL both sides learn to live with each other.
Yeah in complete agreement. Either solution, 1 state or 2 state will entail a lot of co-operation between the 2 peoples. Either solution would be a lot of work, but worth it in the end.0 -
fly_agaric wrote: »Yes, but they won't be able to foot the bill alone because it will cost too much so the US (and other countries) will have to pay.
I am sure the US (and others will), will probably foot some of the bill, but Israel should pay at least some of it.0 -
Just wondering.........
Around the same time as the foundation of Israel, several million ethnic Germans were forcibly evicted from their homes in Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland and the German provinces of Upper Silesia, East Prussia and Pomerania. This was done either by or with the consent of the victorious Allied nations. They became refugees, lost their land and did not receive compensation. About one million died from the ensuing hardship.
Should this also be regarded as ethnic cleansing?
Do they have a right to return? A right to reclaim their former land/houses?
Do their descendents have such rights?
If the answer to any of the above is "no", what differentiates their situation from that of the Palestinians?0 -
Gobán Saor wrote: »Just wondering.........
Around the same time as the foundation of Israel, several million ethnic Germans were forcibly evicted from their homes in Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Poland and the German provinces of Upper Silesia, East Prussia and Pomerania. This was done either by or with the consent of the victorious Allied nations. They became refugees, lost their land and did not receive compensation. About one million died from the ensuing hardship.
Should this also be regarded as ethnic cleansing?
Do they have a right to return? A right to reclaim their former land/houses?
Do their descendents have such rights?
If the answer to any of the above is "no", what differentiates their situation from that of the Palestinians?
Source Link? I've never heard of this particular incident (although am not surprised considering the treatment the Reich had recently metted out to the ethnic slavic races)
If a group of people are forcibly removed from a region based on something that defines them seperately from others (race, creed, sexual orientation, religion, etc.) then yes that is ethnic cleansing.
Why. The. F*ck. do people have such a difficult time grasping the concept of ethnic cleansing?
As for the rest of it, without knowledge of the events during and after I can't answer those questions. Suffice to say .... I will point out one fundamental point. We are discussing Israel. Not Czechoslovakia (which incidentally does not exist anymore ... ), Hungary, Poland and the German provinces of Upper Silesia, East Prussia and Pomerania.0 -
Here's a wikipedia link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_Germans_after_World_War_II
I'm just wondering about a double standard, that's all. In discussing the middle east, it's seemingly taken for granted that some form of "right of return" for the Palestinian people is a necessary ingredient of a settlement. This has been expressed trenchantly by many posters on this thread. I'm just posing the question - why does an ethnic German similarly forced from his home and country at the same time (or his descendents) not have the same right?0 -
Gobán Saor wrote: »Should this also be regarded as ethnic cleansing?
Yes.Gobán Saor wrote: »Do they have a right to return? A right to reclaim their former land/houses?
Yes and yes.Gobán Saor wrote: »Do their descendents have such rights?
Yes.
Of course I have no idea of the legal basis for any such rights, but they should have them imho.
Quick question seeing as that Israel has a right to return law for the Jewish people after a 1000 years in some cases. Why should Israel question Palestinians wanting to return after 60?
Also, If Israel is a democracy where everyone is treated the same, why is the right to return law not extended to Palestinians, who were only gone for 60 years? Doesn't look like there treated the same to me.
Aren't Palestinians asking for a right to return (after only 60 years, as opposed to a 1000), just asking to be treated the same as Jewish people? Do they Palestinians not have the right to be treated the same?0 -
Gobán Saor wrote: »Here's a wikipedia link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expulsion_of_Germans_after_World_War_II
I'm just wondering about a double standard, that's all. In discussing the middle east, it's seemingly taken for granted that some form of "right of return" for the Palestinian people is a necessary ingredient of a settlement. This has been expressed trenchantly by many posters on this thread. I'm just posing the question - why does an ethnic German similarly forced from his home and country at the same time (or his descendents) not have the same right?
What double standard? Has anyone said these people don't deserve the same rights as Palestinians? For there to be a double standard, someone would have had to have said that. No one was discussing this until you brought this up. Just, because posters didn't mention this in a topic about Israel, doesn't mean anyone has double standards. Why would anyone even bring this up in a topic about Israel? Sorry, you accusation of double standards is nonsense.
Simply put, what you talking about has nothing to do with what we are talking about, you may as well talk about the partition of India or Haluga Khan sacking Baghdad, it has that much relevance to this discussion. You may as well accuse people of having double standards for not condemning Haluga Khan's sack of Baghdad or condemning the violence during the partition of India. It would make no sense to do so, but its not like that should be an issue.
You bring up a topic that has nothing to do with the thread at all. Its a complete tangent. If you feel so strongly about what happened to the Germans, perhaps you should start a thread to discuss there plight.
Oh and see my post above, about how someone who is Jewish can return to Israel after a 1000 years, but a Palestinians can't after just 60.0 -
The problem is the colonists. Will they be willing to move. Thats another potential problem.
The Gaza colonists didn't seem all that enthused about moving, but were 'convinced' to leave by the Israeli security forces. I think that should Israel decide it, the colonists personal opinions will not be much of a factor.
NTM0 -
Manic Moran wrote: »The Gaza colonists didn't seem all that enthused about moving, but were 'convinced' to leave by the Israeli security forces. I think that should Israel decide it, the colonists personal opinions will not be much of a factor.
Take a look at some of the things that some of there leaders say. At a minimum they could bring down the current government if they tried to remove them.
Its a sad set of affairs, that the reasonable people on both sides that are willing to make a compromise, are being held hostage by the extreme elements of there societies.0 -
Advertisement
-
Are the West Bank colonists a different political group to the Gaza colonists? I'm having difficulty understanding why the one should have any greater or lesser sway or be any more or less difficult than the other.
NTM0
Advertisement