The changing Palestinian/Israeli picture

This discussion was created from comments split from: Biden/Harris Reflections and Prognostications.
«13456715

Comments

  • The one group of people that will suffer in all this peacemaking is the Palestinian people. The Arab Nations had long said they would not recognize Israel without a Palestinian solution. That has not happened. I hope Biden will stand up for Ramahla since the Arab nations have betrayed their own.
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    The one group of people that will suffer in all this peacemaking is the Palestinian people. The Arab Nations had long said they would not recognize Israel without a Palestinian solution. That has not happened. I hope Biden will stand up for Ramahla since the Arab nations have betrayed their own.

    That's a tad extreme. I'd hardly say that fighting a handful of incredibly costly wars and destroying the fabric of your society for generations in support of the Palestinians counts as betrayal.
  • tclune wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    The one group of people that will suffer in all this peacemaking is the Palestinian people. The Arab Nations had long said they would not recognize Israel without a Palestinian solution. That has not happened. I hope Biden will stand up for Ramahla since the Arab nations have betrayed their own.

    That's a tad extreme. I'd hardly say that fighting a handful of incredibly costly wars and destroying the fabric of your society for generations in support of the Palestinians counts as betrayal.

    No it isn't, just to review. Palestinians and a small group of Jews lived peacefully up until WWII. Then the Zionists began to immigrate to the holy land. At first, the Palestinians welcomed the newcomers. Of course, the Zionists rebelled and forced the UN to pass Resolution 81 which called for the partition of the holy land into a Jews state and a Palestinian, However, in 1948, David Ben Gurion and the Jewish Peoples Council attacked the Palestinians, seizing cities and the best farmland forcing the Palestinians to flee to the West Bank, or as refugees to Lebanon, Syria, Jorden, and Eygpt, and the Gaza Strip. If it weren't for the Arab states to join together to repulse the Zionist armies, Palestine would have been forced off the map.

    The Palestinians thought they would continue to have the backing of the Arab nations especially as they were working for a two-state solution. Then Netanyahu came into power. He started undercutting the process by allowing unauthorized settlements on Palestinian land. In spite of many UN resolutions condemning this activity, he has continued especially under the Trump administration.

    Now Trump has undermined the support of the Arab League for the Palestinians, but getting a number of Arab nations to formally recognize Israel. Consequently, the Palestinians are facing isolation and new threats from the Netanyahu government.

    You just might want to look at this from another set of eyes.

    Besides, who in the hell authorized Trump to give away the Western Sahara. Since it is jointly administered by Morocco and Mauritania under the auspices of the UN? The United States has no territorial claim to that land. Spain has a more direct connection to the territory.



  • Well said Gramps49.

    I've noticed that trump has been eversocosy with Israel's bully-boy and doing things to keep his supporters happy which boosts trump's support in certain sectors too.

    I also wondered what Western Sahara was to do with it. Is it just that among tyrants and bullies of the world trump's US is one of the biggest powers and trump is exercising US power to arrange 'peace deals' while he's still in office - regardless of whether he has the right to negotiate Western Sahara's awkward stalemate with Morocco just so he's got something which he can point back to in future and claim he did something 'good'.
  • I doubt that Trump or Kushner have much to do with the brass tacks of this alliance. It has been years in the making. I think it is a creature of the Saudis and the Israelis.

    I wonder whether Netanyahu will try to annex the West Bank under a Biden Presidency. I imagine it depends upon whether the Saudis have given their tacit consent.

    I thought the Iranians funded Hamas. Wikipedia suggests it is much more complicated than that. Amazingly, most of its funding now comes from the Gulf, via Israel.
    After 2009, sanctions on Iran made funding difficult, forcing Hamas to rely on religious donations by individuals in the West Bank, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia. Funds amounting to tens of millions of dollars raised in the Gulf states were transferred through the Rafah Border Crossing. These were not sufficient to cover the costs of governing the Strip and running the al Qassam Brigades, and when tensions arose with Iran over support of President Assad in Syria, Iran dropped its financial assistance to the government, restricting its funding to the military wing, which meant a drop from $150 million in 2012 to $60 million the following year. A further drop occurred in 2015 when Hamas expressed its criticisms of Iran's role in the Yemeni Civil War.[107]

    In 2017, the PA government imposed its own sanctions against Gaza, including, among other things, cutting off salaries to thousands of PA employees, as well as financial assistance to hundreds of families in the Gaza Strip. The PA initially said it would stop paying for the electricity and fuel that Israel supplies to the Gaza Strip, but after a year partially backtracked.[108] The Israeli government has allowed millions of dollars from Qatar to be funneled on a regular basis through Israel to Hamas, to replace the millions of dollars the PA had stopped transferring to Hamas. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu explained that letting the money go through Israel meant that it could not be used for terrorism, saying: "Now that we are supervising, we know it's going to humanitarian causes."[109]

    It looks to me like the Arab/Israeli problem might be approaching a resolution, as long as Israel can keep the Saudis and the Iranians punching on.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    It looks to me like the Arab/Israeli problem might be approaching a resolution, as long as Israel can keep the Saudis and the Iranians punching on.

    The solution seems to be to cut the Palestinians loose and form a Saudi-centered Arab alliance that excludes the mostly non-Arab Iranians. Whether that constitutes a resolution or just trading one problem for another probably depends on your perspective.

    What would an annexed West Bank look like in practice? Current trends aren't promising.
    Israel will begin rolling out a major coronavirus vaccination campaign next week after the prime minister reached out personally to the head of a major drug company. Millions of Palestinians living under Israeli control will have to wait much longer.

    <snip>

    Israel reached an agreement with the Pfizer pharmaceutical company to supply 8 million doses of its newly approved vaccine — enough to cover nearly half of Israel’s population of 9 million, since each person requires two doses. That came after Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu personally reached out multiple times to Pfizer Chief Executive Albert Bourla, boasting that at one point he was able to reach the CEO at 2 a.m.

    Israel has mobile vaccination units with refrigerators that can keep the Pfizer shots at the required minus 70 degrees Celsius (minus 94 Fahrenheit). It plans to begin vaccinations as soon as next week, with a capacity of more than 60,000 shots a day. Israel reached a separate agreement with Moderna earlier this month to purchase 6 million doses of its vaccine — enough for another 3 million Israelis.

    Israel’s vaccination campaign will include Jewish settlers living deep inside the West Bank, who are Israeli citizens, but not the territory’s 2.5 million Palestinians.

    I'm not sure this would play out any differently if the West Bank were officially annexed.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »


    I wonder whether Netanyahu will try to annex the West Bank under a Biden Presidency. I imagine it depends upon whether the Saudis have given their tacit consent.


    The Israelis have already de facto annexed a fair amount of the West Bank (the "settlements"), if nothing else as a bargaining chip in future negotiations / land swaps ...

  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited December 2020
    Yeah, but a de jure annexation (at least under Israeli law, recognised by Arab states and much of the West) is a different kettle of fish. I mean, if the Arabs recognise it, the bloody UN might too.

    On coronavirus, Israel is looking pretty good. I think they went into lockdown again, and on a very quick look at the Johns Hopkins summary that Google uses for their headline, their requirement for an urgent, hyper-expensive vaccine is mostly a matter of calming the chooks. Three thousand deaths to date is the headline figure. The same data source for the West Bank shows 1500 deaths. I'm not sure how they count Israel/Palestine cases...

    The bottom line is that the Pfizer vaccine is not really needed there. They can wait for a better and cheaper option. Nevertheless, I take your point. Israel and the West Bank are not going to be happy families in our lifetimes, and the Palestinians will be significantly disadvantaged for a long time to come.

    In any event, the vaccination of Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza is the responsibility of the PA and Hamas. Israel would be wise to assist them, given how many Palestinians work in Israel and the Settlements.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    Yeah, but a de jure annexation (at least under Israeli law, recognised by Arab states and much of the West) is a different kettle of fish. I mean, if the Arabs recognise it, the bloody UN might too.

    On coronavirus, Israel is looking pretty good. I think they went into lockdown again, and on a very quick look at the Johns Hopkins summary that Google uses for their headline, their requirement for an urgent, hyper-expensive vaccine is mostly a matter of calming the chooks. Three thousand deaths to date is the headline figure. The same data source for the West Bank shows 1500 deaths. I'm not sure how they count Israel/Palestine cases...

    The bottom line is that the Pfizer vaccine is not really needed there. They can wait for a better and cheaper option. Nevertheless, I take your point. Israel and the West Bank are not going to be happy families in our lifetimes, and the Palestinians will be significantly disadvantaged for a long time to come.

    In any event, the vaccination of Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza is the responsibility of the PA and Hamas. Israel would be wise to assist them, given how many Palestinians work in Israel and the Settlements.

    IMHO, the late PM Golda Meier said it well ... "There can be peace in the middle east when Palestinian mothers love their sons more than they hate Israel ..." ...
  • That is very true, but weapons are important as well.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    IMHO, the late PM Golda Meier said it well ... "There can be peace in the middle east when Palestinian mothers love their sons more than they hate Israel ..." ...
    In the mean time Israeli policy is to ensure there is no danger of that happening.
    The beatings will continue until morale improves.

  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    edited December 2020
    Simon Toad wrote: »
    Yeah, but a de jure annexation (at least under Israeli law, recognised by Arab states and much of the West) is a different kettle of fish. I mean, if the Arabs recognise it, the bloody UN might too.

    On coronavirus, Israel is looking pretty good. I think they went into lockdown again, and on a very quick look at the Johns Hopkins summary that Google uses for their headline, their requirement for an urgent, hyper-expensive vaccine is mostly a matter of calming the chooks. Three thousand deaths to date is the headline figure. The same data source for the West Bank shows 1500 deaths. I'm not sure how they count Israel/Palestine cases...

    The bottom line is that the Pfizer vaccine is not really needed there. They can wait for a better and cheaper option. Nevertheless, I take your point. Israel and the West Bank are not going to be happy families in our lifetimes, and the Palestinians will be significantly disadvantaged for a long time to come.

    In any event, the vaccination of Palestinians living in the West Bank and Gaza is the responsibility of the PA and Hamas. Israel would be wise to assist them, given how many Palestinians work in Israel and the Settlements.

    IMHO, the late PM Golda Meier said it well ... "There can be peace in the middle east when Palestinian mothers love their sons more than they hate Israel ..." ...

    I remember an old story: John F. Kennedy, Nakita Krushchev, and Golda Meier died and appeared before the Lord. God asked them if there was anything they wanted to know. John asked, "Will there be Civil Rights legislation in America?" God said, "Yes, but not in your lifetime."
    Nakita asked, "Will there be peace between the US and Russia?" God said "Yes, but not in your lifetime."
    Golda asked "Will there be brotherhood [and sisterhood] between the Jews and the Palestinians? God said, "Yes, but not in my lifetime."

    I do remember meeting a Palestinian family vacationing in the Bahamas a few years ago. And I distinctly remember the father of the family said he would not allow his sons to blow themselves up in the intifada.
  • mousethiefmousethief Shipmate
    edited December 2020
    Dafyd wrote: »
    IMHO, the late PM Golda Meier said it well ... "There can be peace in the middle east when Palestinian mothers love their sons more than they hate Israel ..." ...
    In the mean time Israeli policy is to ensure there is no danger of that happening.
    The beatings will continue until morale improves.

    Yes. The cop with his knee on the black man's neck saying "Stop hating me. Stop hating me." Meir did as much to create anti-Israeli hate in the Palestinians as anyone since.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    IMHO, the late PM Golda Meier said it well ... "There can be peace in the middle east when Palestinian mothers love their sons more than they hate Israel ..." ...
    In the mean time Israeli policy is to ensure there is no danger of that happening.
    The beatings will continue until morale improves.

    Yes. The cop with his knee on the black man's neck saying "Stop hating me. Stop hating me." Meir did as much to create anti-Israeli hate in the Palestinians as anyone since.

    A few decades back I was stunned to hear a member of my own family repeat an old anti-Jewish trope ... There was a news story about the Israelis being attacked and then rising to defend themselves ... My relative shook her head, saying, "Those Jews ... Causing trouble again ..."
    ... and in another similar deal, a friend of mine, fellow clergy, Ph.D, solemnly told me that, "The Jews bring trouble on themselves because they don't 'assimilate' ..." ...

    If only if only if only (1) "The Jews" would stop being "Jewish," they would be okay ... and/but (2) in the meantime, *they* are welcome to be as "Jewish" as they want if only they live and move and have their being *somewhere*else* (and NOT as a majority population in their own land controlling the destiny of their own people) ...
  • Re Palestine/Israel:

    I think there's a lot on both sides. Not to mention some of the outside forces.

    Golda Meir was in office when I was a kid, and I liked her very much. I doubt I understood the politics of the situation, other than various groups fighting each other. Probably was because she was the leader of a country--and a woman! I think I liked what I perceived of her smile, eyes, and sense of humor.

    That doesn't mean I endorse anything she did. I'm not sure what she did, but I don't particularly want to look into it, either.
  • Re Covid vaccine for Palestinians:

    If they're prevented from getting it, I wonder if it could be snuck in from Jordan through the smuggling tunnels?
  • The Israelis have already de facto annexed a fair amount of the West Bank (the "settlements"), if nothing else as a bargaining chip in future negotiations / land swaps ...

    IMHO: Israel really needs to stop building settlements--and maybe give up some of the existing ones. They seem not to realize/believe that they're making things worse for themselves, not just the Palestinians.
  • To any Palestinian or Israeli Shipmates and lurkers:

    I'm not taking sides. I just want the whole situation to be safely fixed, settled, and healed fo all parties.
  • Golden Key wrote: »
    The Israelis have already de facto annexed a fair amount of the West Bank (the "settlements"), if nothing else as a bargaining chip in future negotiations / land swaps ...

    IMHO: Israel really needs to stop building settlements--and maybe give up some of the existing ones. They seem not to realize/believe that they're making things worse for themselves, not just the Palestinians.

    Many critics and foes of The Jewish State of Israel would be grudgingly *okay* with an "Israel" consisting of a few neighborhoods in Tel Aviv and maybe in Western Jerusalem -- provided that *they* are not the majority population ...
  • I'm wondering if this thread's Israel/Palestine discussion should move to a new thread?
  • Golden Key wrote: »
    The Israelis have already de facto annexed a fair amount of the West Bank (the "settlements"), if nothing else as a bargaining chip in future negotiations / land swaps ...

    IMHO: Israel really needs to stop building settlements--and maybe give up some of the existing ones. They seem not to realize/believe that they're making things worse for themselves, not just the Palestinians.

    Many critics and foes of The Jewish State of Israel would be grudgingly *okay* with an "Israel" consisting of a few neighborhoods in Tel Aviv and maybe in Western Jerusalem -- provided that *they* are not the majority population ...

    Maybe consider arguing with what people actually say rather than building a strawman?

    In any case, no-one has a right to achieve a majority in any territory by forcing others from their homes and land.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    IMHO, the late PM Golda Meier said it well ... "There can be peace in the middle east when Palestinian mothers love their sons more than they hate Israel ..." ...
    In the mean time Israeli policy is to ensure there is no danger of that happening.
    The beatings will continue until morale improves.

    Yes. The cop with his knee on the black man's neck saying "Stop hating me. Stop hating me." Meir did as much to create anti-Israeli hate in the Palestinians as anyone since.

    A few decades back I was stunned to hear a member of my own family repeat an old anti-Jewish trope ... There was a news story about the Israelis being attacked and then rising to defend themselves ... My relative shook her head, saying, "Those Jews ... Causing trouble again ..."
    ... and in another similar deal, a friend of mine, fellow clergy, Ph.D, solemnly told me that, "The Jews bring trouble on themselves because they don't 'assimilate' ..." ...

    If only if only if only (1) "The Jews" would stop being "Jewish," they would be okay ... and/but (2) in the meantime, *they* are welcome to be as "Jewish" as they want if only they live and move and have their being *somewhere*else* (and NOT as a majority population in their own land controlling the destiny of their own people) ...

    Slick non sequitur. Maybe someday you will respond to what I said.
  • Not in his lifetime.
  • KwesiKwesi Shipmate
    The Palestinian/Israeli question has to be recognised for what it is: just about the most intractable problem in international relations, which no amount of moralising can resolve. The Israelis are the most powerfully armed nation in its immediate region and enjoy the diplomatic and military support of the United States. On the other side there are a large number of Palestinians who are not going to go away and have the reasonable hope that at some point political change in the Middle will move in their favour. The Second Coming, perhaps.
  • The two state solution is pretty much dead, because Israel has no intention of allowing a completely sovereign, self-autonomous Palestinian state on its borders.

    The only hope now, is that when this generation of current leadership in Israel passes, that the next generation will look to building some sort of one-state solution that will give equal rights to all people. There will however still be difficult issues to resolve, the Palestinian refugees and their descendants need to either 1) return to their homes or 2) receive just compensation so that they can rebuild. Jerusalem is another quagmire that needs to be fixed.

    I have little hope that anything will happen substantively in the short term. Especially with Netanyahu as Israeli prime minister.
  • The two state solution is pretty much dead, because Israel has no intention of allowing a completely sovereign, self-autonomous Palestinian state on its borders.

    Current Israeli policy is to maintain the current Palestinian status quo, neither annexing the Palestinian territories nor allowing independence. Foreign policywise they're looking to get the situation back to that brief window between when Israel was established and the 1948 War, where the status of the Palestinians was treated by Israel's Arab neighbors as an internal Israeli matter. They seem to be having some success in this.

    The reason why I think the status quo is more appealing to Israel than annexation is the importance of Israel's self-image as a majority Jewish state. Green line Israel plus the annexed East Jerusalem is definitely majority Jewish. Green line Israel plus the West Bank is still majority Jewish, but only barely. Green line Israel plus the West Bank and Gaza would no longer be majority Jewish (without ethnic cleansing).
  • Crœsos wrote: »
    Current Israeli policy is to maintain the current Palestinian status quo, neither annexing the Palestinian territories nor allowing independence.

    With constant chipping away of the West Bank territories.

  • TheOrganistTheOrganist Shipmate
    edited December 2020
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    tclune wrote: »
    Gramps49 wrote: »
    The one group of people that will suffer in all this peacemaking is the Palestinian people. The Arab Nations had long said they would not recognize Israel without a Palestinian solution. That has not happened. I hope Biden will stand up for Ramahla since the Arab nations have betrayed their own.

    That's a tad extreme. I'd hardly say that fighting a handful of incredibly costly wars and destroying the fabric of your society for generations in support of the Palestinians counts as betrayal.

    No it isn't, just to review. Palestinians and a small group of Jews lived peacefully up until WWII. Then the Zionists began to immigrate to the holy land. At first, the Palestinians welcomed the newcomers.
    No.
    For a start there were regular massacres of Jews under the Ottoman Empire. Hebron and Gaza, as well as Jerusalem, saw many instances of Jews being targeted.

    From 1920 and the San Remo Conference (whivh formally recognised the Balfour Declaration) there were organised attacks; pilgrims to Qubbat As-Sakhrah (the Dome of the Rock) attacked Jews in the Old City if Jerusalem - indeed they were encouraged to do so by Haj Amin al-Husseini, the acknowledged leader of the Palestinians in the Mandate territories. Matters got progressively worse during the 1920s/early 1930s until the British were forced to acknowledge a full-scale arab revolt and commit thousands of troops to try to quell the violence. The behaviour of the British was not even-handed: they refused to let Jewish settlers arm themselves, while the British led Arab Legion was pure-and-simple pro-Arab.

    Before you attack me, consider my sources: a Jewish aunt born in Gaza in 1902 and two male relatives in the Mandate government, plus a relative seconded to the Arab Legion who was so disgusted at the attitudes and actions of his fellow British officers that he resigned. I have relatives in both Israel and PA controlled territory.
    Of course, the Zionists rebelled and forced the UN to pass Resolution 81 which called for the partition of the holy land into a Jews state and a Palestinian,
    No one "forced" the UN to do anything. A free vote was held which agreed that the Mandate should be dissolved with territory being split between Jordan and the Jewish settlers being given the option of forming their own state, if they chose to. A clear plan was supposedly agreed of which territories were to go to the Jews and which to remain Arab. It left the Jews with a patchwork if settlements which were virtually indefensible, but they were prepared to work with it, as were the Druze (who were the real losers in the situation) if it kept the peace.

    The Palestinians would have had their own territory and provision was made for them to have their own state - it was even suggested that Haj Amin al-Husseini, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, should be installed as head of state, despite him still being on a list of wanted war criminals due to his actions during WWII.

    Jerusalem and Bethlehem were intended to be shared territory

    The first exodus of Palestinians began shortly after the vote at the UN: wealthy arabs fearful of war decamped to mainly Lebanin and Syria (where many had homes or relatives) while the less wealthy moved to larger arab settlements. Indeed, so great was the movement of people that the Higher Arab Executive complained that what should have been a ready-made fifth column in the Jewish areas was vanishing even before a Jewish state was declared.
    However, in 1948, David Ben Gurion and the Jewish Peoples Council attacked the Palestinians, seizing cities and the best farmland forcing the Palestinians to flee to the West Bank, or as refugees to Lebanon, Syria, Jorden, and Eygpt, and the Gaza Strip.
    The day before the Mandate was due to end, and before Ben Gurion declared the foundation of the state of Israel, a coalition of forces from Egypt, Jordan, Syria and Iraq crossed into Mandate territory and began attacking Jewish settlements . At the same time broadcasts and newspaper articles urged Palestinian arabs to flee to leave a clear field for the arab coalition forces to push the jews into the sea. The Arab Legion tried to help with their CO, Glubb Pasha, handing over to arabs numerous predominantly jewish areas and clearing jews from most of Jerusalem.
    If it weren't for the Arab states to join together to repulse the Zionist armies, Palestine would have been forced off the map.
    There was no "repulsing" of anything: the arab coalition mounted a full-scale invasion of Jewish territories which was repulsed.
    The Palestinians thought they would continue to have the backing of the Arab nations especially as they were working for a two-state solution.
    A two state solution was never the goal of the Palestinians or any of the neighbouring arab countries. They were committed to the destruction of the state of Israel, many adding a statement demanding that to their constitutions.

    Of course, once the various arab governments and their armies had failed to annihilate the jews and wipe the state of Israel from the map they were faced with a problem: thousands of Palestinians who had fled in the expectation of going back home once the jews had been butchered were now stuck with nowhere to go. If the various arab governments had had an ounce of genuine feeling for their co-religionists in the predicament which they had helped to create they would have done two things. One, resettled those Palestinians who felt they had nothing to go back to. Two, accepted the original UN proposal of a two state territory, more importantly the fact of a Jewish state, and paid for the rebuilding of arab towns and the return of their Palestinian population.

    The sad fact is that it was fellow arabs who kept Palestinians in refugee camps. It was arabs, especially wealthy countries like Saudi Arabia, which gave damn all to ease the plight of Palestinians and enable them and their children to have a decent life; rather they preferred to provide miney for guns and explosives.
    Then Netanyahu came into power. He started undercutting the process by allowing unauthorized settlements on Palestinian land. In spite of many UN resolutions condemning this activity, he has continued especially under the Trump administration.
    This is land that in some cases was abandoned more than 60 years ago. How many more years are the Israelis meant to wait for people to "return"?
    Trump has undermined the support of the Arab League for the Palestinians, but getting a number of Arab nations to formally recognize Israel. Consequently, the Palestinians are facing isolation and new threats from the Netanyahu government.
    If persuading arab countries to recognise Israel is such a bad thing then why are these governments doing it? Frankly an acknowledgement of the right of Israel to exist has to be in place before there can be any hope for the majority of Palestinians. It should also be borne in mind that maybe the arab countries look at the violence, corruption and mismanagement that are the hallmarks of the Palestinian Authority and face the fact that the PA is possibly the worst body to have any dealings with.
  • Thanks for that summary, TheOrganist.
    The Palestinians would have had their own territory and provision was made for them to have their own state - it was even suggested that Haj Amin al-Husseini, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, should be installed as head of state, despite him still being on a list of wanted war criminals due to his actions during WWII.

    That rang a bell - I came across that bloke in unrelated reading quite recently.
  • Anglican BratAnglican Brat Shipmate
    edited December 2020
    I was in Israel/Palestine a few years ago and what I learned is that the the 1967 boundaries between Israel proper and the Occupied territories is an artificial one. You cannot partition the land and assume Palestinians will accept the West Bank and Gaza because many of them trace their family lineage to territories within Israel proper back generations. Also, many right wing Israelis insist that parts of the West Bank are Jewish because they are where supposedly Abraham and Sarah and the Patriarchs live.

    The only solution I see is a secular state where all the residents of the region are equal citizens have full rights
  • edited December 2020
    The only solution I see is a secular state where all the residents of the region are equal citizens have full rights

    Sort of like when the UK and RoI were both in the EU, and folks in NI could hold either or both passports, then? Sounds great. :(
  • I was in Israel/Palestine a few years ago and what I learned is that the the 1967 boundaries between Israel proper and the Occupied territories is an artificial one. You cannot partition the land and assume Palestinians will accept the West Bank and Gaza because many of them trace their family lineage to territories within Israel proper back generations. Also, many right wing Israelis insist that parts of the West Bank are Jewish because they are where supposedly Abraham and Sarah and the Patriarchs live.

    The only solution I see is a secular state where all the residents of the region are equal citizens have full rights

    If ancestral lands have been taken away from people, and they have a genuine grievance, this surely must be addressed or there will never be any progress made.
  • Is there anything, other than war from an outside force, that could drive both Palestinians and (Jewish) Israelis to work together, because they had no other choice if they were going to survive?
  • I was in Israel/Palestine a few years ago and what I learned is that the the 1967 boundaries between Israel proper and the Occupied territories is an artificial one.

    Ummm, not to be overly pedantic*, but aren't all political borders "artificial" (i.e. products of human artifice)?


    *Just kidding, I'm totally being overly pedantic.
  • @TheOrganist

    Don't worry, I am not going to attack you. You have put forth the traditional Zionist position. I have tried to present the Palestinian position. I have learned long ago, that in such cases, the real truth is somewhere in between. The point is, there are irreconcilable differences between the two sides.

    Regarding a two-state solution--this is really not a new concept. Both Canada and the United States have First Nations Reserves or Native American Reservations. Both governments recognize the sovereignty of the tribes on their respective reserves/reservations, sometimes with more success than other times---though with a Native American being nominated for the head of the Department of Interior (which handles Native American Affairs) I am looking for even more dramatic changes in the US system. There are similar relationships in Africa and Asia.

    The point is you cannot just move into someone's house without their permission. The Palestinians have long-standing claims to parts of the Holy Land that have to be addressed somehow.
  • @mark_in_manchester
    Yasser Arafat was related to the Grand Mufti ...
  • The only solution I see is a secular state where all the residents of the region are equal citizens have full rights

    Sort of like when the UK and RoI were both in the EU, and folks in NI could hold either or both passports, then? Sounds great. :(

    I didn't write that it was a perfect solution, I wrote it as the only solution.

    Incidentally, this would not be an easy solution, especially if both groups are fearful that they would get swamped by the other in any situation of co-existence. There are examples of countries where distinct groups are recognized and given certain privileges over and above what they might be entitled to under a strict representation by population standard. So for example given Israel's current concern that the increase in the population of the Palestinians might result in them getting swamped in any possible single state solution, they might demand that they retain let's say 40% of the legislature, irrespective of population in any power sharing agreement.

    So it won't be easy or simple, but neither would a two state solution be easy or simple as well. A two state solution is untenable because there will be many Palestinians who will want to work and live in Israel and vice versa, the Jewish settlers in the occupied territories. So, a two state solution would have to wrestle with the mess that these two peoples will invariably intertwine with one another.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    According to the relevant wikipedia page, TheOrganist's account was the official Israeli government account of what happened until the late 1970s, at which point archives began to be opened up and Israeli veterans memoirs published.

    The position that the majority of Palestinians left because the Arab military powers ordered them to do so does not have majority support at the moment. Probable causes not mentioned by TheOrganist include what the articles term Jewish psychological warfare (I assume that the term must have survived edit wars), fears of repeat of the Deir Yassin massacre, and forcible expulsion by the Jewish authorities.
  • mousethief wrote: »
    mousethief wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    IMHO, the late PM Golda Meier said it well ... "There can be peace in the middle east when Palestinian mothers love their sons more than they hate Israel ..." ...
    In the mean time Israeli policy is to ensure there is no danger of that happening.
    The beatings will continue until morale improves.

    Yes. The cop with his knee on the black man's neck saying "Stop hating me. Stop hating me." Meir did as much to create anti-Israeli hate in the Palestinians as anyone since.

    A few decades back I was stunned to hear a member of my own family repeat an old anti-Jewish trope ... There was a news story about the Israelis being attacked and then rising to defend themselves ... My relative shook her head, saying, "Those Jews ... Causing trouble again ..."
    ... and in another similar deal, a friend of mine, fellow clergy, Ph.D, solemnly told me that, "The Jews bring trouble on themselves because they don't 'assimilate' ..." ...

    If only if only if only (1) "The Jews" would stop being "Jewish," they would be okay ... and/but (2) in the meantime, *they* are welcome to be as "Jewish" as they want if only they live and move and have their being *somewhere*else* (and NOT as a majority population in their own land controlling the destiny of their own people) ...

    Slick non sequitur. Maybe someday you will respond to what I said.

    Facts on the ground are stubborn things ..
  • Then Netanyahu came into power. He started undercutting the process by allowing unauthorized settlements on Palestinian land. In spite of many UN resolutions condemning this activity, he has continued especially under the Trump administration.
    This is land that in some cases was abandoned more than 60 years ago. How many more years are the Israelis meant to wait for people to "return"?

    And in many cases it wasn't, and in any case that a piece of land in an adjoining state is empty doesn't mean you are free to shift the border.
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    @TheOrganist

    Don't worry, I am not going to attack you. You have put forth the traditional Zionist position. I have tried to present the Palestinian position. I have learned long ago, that in such cases, the real truth is somewhere in between. The point is, there are irreconcilable differences between the two sides.

    Regarding a two-state solution--this is really not a new concept. Both Canada and the United States have First Nations Reserves or Native American Reservations. Both governments recognize the sovereignty of the tribes on their respective reserves/reservations, sometimes with more success than other times---though with a Native American being nominated for the head of the Department of Interior (which handles Native American Affairs) I am looking for even more dramatic changes in the US system. There are similar relationships in Africa and Asia.

    The point is you cannot just move into someone's house without their permission. The Palestinians have long-standing claims to parts of the Holy Land that have to be addressed somehow.

    The People of Israel ("The Jews") have lived and moved and had their being in The Land of Israel for the last 3,000 years ... During that time various aggressive neighbors have dominated them, threatened them, occupied their territory, sent some into Exile, and even trie to exterminate them ... But during all that time, the People of Israel have never ceded even one square meter of the Land of Israel to any invading/occupying power -- not the Egyptians, or the Assyrians, or the Babylonians, or the Greeks, or the Romans or any Arab tribes or the Ottomans or the League of Nations ... During all that time the undivided City of Jerusalem has been the spiritual -- and political -- capital of the State and People of Israel ...

    But for some reason, there is a very popular opinion that uniquely among all the peoples of the Earth, "the Jews" may NOT -- must not -- be the majority population in their own land ...
  • Simon ToadSimon Toad Shipmate
    edited December 2020
    Here's an article from Al Jazeera reporting on the Saudi Foreign Ministers statement on the "peace agreement". He is affirming Saudi Arabia's commitment to a Palestinian state as a prerequisite to normalisation of relations with Israel. I have read elsewhere that there is division within the Saudi Govt about this, but this is the article that was linked to, and I can't see any evidence of that. Perhaps one of the articles linked in THIS article explores that...

    With great respect to fellow shipmates, I don't think rehashing the history of the Arab/Israeli conflict will get us anywhere but our respective trenches. What interests me is resolution. For the avoidance of doubt, I am against BDS and support any move towards a sustainable peace that allows both Arabs and Israelis to worry about their blood pressure, blood sugar and cholesterol levels in middle age.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    very popular opinion that uniquely among all the peoples of the Earth, "the Jews" may NOT -- must not -- be the majority population in their own land ...
    The irony of this statement given that I believe you live in the Americas. Are any of the Native American peoples allowed to be the majority in their own lands? The Britons allowed to be the majority population in England? Are the Greeks allowed to be the majority population in their ancient lands of Byzantium, Pergamon, Ephesus, Halicarnassus?

    Quite apart from that point, if in any other country a member of the current majority and ruling ethnic group claimed the right to take action to continue the majority ethnic group in 'their land' they'd be condemned as racist or xenophobic.

    Uniquely among democratic liberal nations Israel is defended or approved of by liberals when it inserts a clause in its constitution declaring itself to belong to only one people and one ethnicity.

    To say that there's an opinion that the Jews uniquely among the peoples of the earth do not have the right the majority population in their own land is the opposite of the case. There is an opinion that the Jews uniquely among the peoples of the earth do have such a right.
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    Here's an article from Al Jazeera reporting on the Saudi Foreign Ministers statement on the "peace agreement". He is affirming Saudi Arabia's commitment to a Palestinian state as a prerequisite to normalisation of relations with Israel. I have read elsewhere that there is division within the Saudi Govt about this, but this is the article that was linked to, and I can't see any evidence of that. Perhaps one of the articles linked in THIS article explores that...

    With great respect to fellow shipmates, I don't think rehashing the history of the Arab/Israeli conflict will get us anywhere but our respective trenches. What interests me is resolution. For the avoidance of doubt, I am against BDS and support any move towards a sustainable peace that allows both Arabs and Israelis to worry about their blood pressure, blood sugar and cholesterol levels in middle age.

    Yes ... The requirement is ... REAL-ism ...
  • Dafyd wrote: »
    very popular opinion that uniquely among all the peoples of the Earth, "the Jews" may NOT -- must not -- be the majority population in their own land ...
    The irony of this statement given that I believe you live in the Americas. Are any of the Native American peoples allowed to be the majority in their own lands? The Britons allowed to be the majority population in England? Are the Greeks allowed to be the majority population in their ancient lands of Byzantium, Pergamon, Ephesus, Halicarnassus?

    Quite apart from that point, if in any other country a member of the current majority and ruling ethnic group claimed the right to take action to continue the majority ethnic group in 'their land' they'd be condemned as racist or xenophobic.

    Uniquely among democratic liberal nations Israel is defended or approved of by liberals when it inserts a clause in its constitution declaring itself to belong to only one people and one ethnicity.

    To say that there's an opinion that the Jews uniquely among the peoples of the earth do not have the right the majority population in their own land is the opposite of the case. There is an opinion that the Jews uniquely among the peoples of the earth do have such a right.

    By Treaty and SCOTUS decisions, in the USA Native American tribes are "sovereign dependent nations" who do have considerable sovereign power over their own internal affairs ... (MUCH to the consternation of occasional "white" guys who are caught infringing) ...
  • One -- not the only, but one thick -- bottom line is that the Jewish State of Israel is not going to go away or be negotiated out of existence ... As PM Netanyahu stated it so clearly, "When the People of Israel say, 'Never again!,' they mean it ..." ... Another very thick bottom line is that the Jewish-ness of the State of Israel is not a matter for negotiation either ...
  • Golden KeyGolden Key Shipmate
    edited December 2020
    Re Native American tribes being nations:

    Except that's just the ones federally recognized. Many aren't. Here's the Wikipedia list.

    And this is the Wikipedia article on Indian Termination. (Termination, in this case, is about dropping a tribe's federal recognition, forcing assimilation, etc.)

    I found those articles by searching Duck Duck Go on 'US tribes not federally recognized'.

    In skimming the list of hits, I saw mention that some tribes that are recognized don't want those that aren't to become recognized. The US gov't isn't likely to fork out much more money, so any money and support that goes to currently-recognized tribes would probably be split up.

    I don't know whether or not that's accurate. But, as I said on the "Break Glass" thread, mistreatment and worse of Native Americans by the US gov't is one of American's worst original sins. Same for mistreatment and worse of African Americans.

    Shitty world, sometimes.
    :votive:
  • It is not about negotiating away the State of Israel. It is about respecting the rights of other ethnic groups. I believe about 20% of the citizens of Israel are Arab (mostly Palestinian). So it is not exclusively a Jewish state, never has been. Truth be known, around 85% of the population of Israel self identify as not religious.
  • Gramps49 wrote: »
    @TheOrganist

    Don't worry, I am not going to attack you. You have put forth the traditional Zionist position. I have tried to present the Palestinian position. I have learned long ago, that in such cases, the real truth is somewhere in between. The point is, there are irreconcilable differences between the two sides.

    Regarding a two-state solution--this is really not a new concept. Both Canada and the United States have First Nations Reserves or Native American Reservations. Both governments recognize the sovereignty of the tribes on their respective reserves/reservations, sometimes with more success than other times---though with a Native American being nominated for the head of the Department of Interior (which handles Native American Affairs) I am looking for even more dramatic changes in the US system. There are similar relationships in Africa and Asia.

    The point is you cannot just move into someone's house without their permission. The Palestinians have long-standing claims to parts of the Holy Land that have to be addressed somehow.

    The People of Israel ("The Jews") have lived and moved and had their being in The Land of Israel for the last 3,000 years ... During that time various aggressive neighbors have dominated them, threatened them, occupied their territory, sent some into Exile, and even trie to exterminate them ... But during all that time, the People of Israel have never ceded even one square meter of the Land of Israel to any invading/occupying power -- not the Egyptians, or the Assyrians, or the Babylonians, or the Greeks, or the Romans or any Arab tribes or the Ottomans or the League of Nations ... During all that time the undivided City of Jerusalem has been the spiritual -- and political -- capital of the State and People of Israel ...

    But for some reason, there is a very popular opinion that uniquely among all the peoples of the Earth, "the Jews" may NOT -- must not -- be the majority population in their own land ...

    I do not dismiss the Jewish attachment to the Land, however whatever attachment to the Land does not automatically equate to political domination of the land to the exclusion of people, who also can trace generations of their ancestors to having lived on that same land as well.

    My ancestors are in southern China but I have lived in Canada all my life. I have no right today, to suddenly go back to southern China and tell the people there who might have moved in since my family left to "take a hike" because I have an attachment to China.
  • I would also note that most of the non-Jewish Arab residents of Israel/West Bank/Gaza are, like Jews, descended from the ancient Israelites also; they had ancestors who converted from Judaism (or Samaritanism) to Christianity or Islam as well as ancestors from elsewhere.
Sign In or Register to comment.