Israel vs. Palestine: An Overview

Please, no flaming in this thread. If you want to dispute one of my claims, or challenge my perspective, do so calmly, without resorting to "your a zionist shill". These claims go nowhere and only sully the quality of discussion here.

Why has Israel dallied with regard to the two state solution? Undoubtedly, in it's limited context, Israel's continuing settlements in the westbank and their refusal to halt building looks bad. In this limited context, I would absolutely agree with the pundits "stop building!". Why continue building when you can bring this crisis to an end? It doesn't make sense to continue building settlements, adding fuel to the fire of extremist opposition against Israel. So why? What is the basis of the 1 state solution policy being pursued by continuing to build settlements in the westbank?

This is the ultimate question. It is this question - only when rationally assessed - which can yield a deeper understanding into the two viewpoints vying for supremacy in both Israeli and international politics with regard to the westbank settlements.

The issue is this: Do the Palestinians really want peace? Is this merely a ruse to serve as a stage in a process which culminates in Israel's elimination? Or is this a sincere plea for self determination? How much of it is which? Which view prevails in Palestinian politics. One critic of Israel said that Israel's refusal to stop building in the westbank while soliciting negotiations with the Palestinians is akin to promising to split a pizza with someone else while consuming his portion of the pizza. It's an interesting analogy. Question is, why? Lets flip the question around. Critics of Israel refer to Israel's current settlement activities as the central impasse to direct negotiations. I would counter that the PA's refusal to acknowledge Israel as a Jewish state, defined by it's ethnic identity, as a pretty good reason for why Israel refuses to halt it's settlement building.

So here we are. One side, the Palestinians, categorically, and systematically refuse to make any formal acknowledgement of Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state. On the other side, there's Israel, building outposts on land formally promised for a future Palestinian state.

Those on the left who support a 2 state solution base their position on a hope: the hope that once Palestinians achieve their state, they will respect and acknowledge Israels right to exist, and likewise, be constrained by international oversight. Those on the right are far more skeptical; not only do they feel that the Palestinian state is a part of a larger process that closes with Israel's elimination, but they also feel the world community - historically speaking - has failed time and again to come to the aid of the Jewish people. So, instead of resting on a hunch of goodwill, a trust in the good faith of the other (and by the other, we mean, Islamists), those on the right adamantly refuse to negotiate with those who they firmly believe are scheming towards their destruction.

This is I believe the state of the game. And the stakes have only increased since Islamists have come into power in Morocco, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, and quite possibly, Syria. Will Islamists be more or less friendly with Israel? If Israel were to agree to a settlement with the Palestinians which consisted of: uprooting Jewish communities in the West bank and transferring the 250,000 Jews living their into Israel proper (an enormous task in itself) East Jerusalem as a Palestinian capital, and other minor issues (not including the right of return, since that would obviate the Jewish state), what kind of government could we expect in the new Palestinian state? Would a state negotiated with Mahmoud Abbas, apply to a Hamas' government that wins the democratic vote? Would Hamas, shielded by Islamist allies in Egypt and Syria and the greater middle east, worry themselves about what 'international opinion' thinks about them?

These are prospective issues which Israel understandably worries about. They feel a concession to Mahmoud Abbas could very well turn into an overture to Islamists: and Islamists, given their radical ideology and overall ideological and cultural antimony to Israel and the west, would on principle continue to oppose a Jewish state in the heart of Dar Al Islam.

Once Islamists win the power that they have been denied and coveted for close to a hundred years, how will they respond with it once they've created for themselves a veritable 'bloc' of Islamist nations? Would they act as the Nazis boldly acted against Poland and Czechoslovakia despite world opinion 70+ years ago? Would Islamist nations launch a coordinated attack against Israel, and accomplish what Arabs threatened in 1948, to "throw the Jews into the sea", regardless of international consequences?

This is a plausible long term picture which unfortunately doesn't receive more attention.

In short, one side is animated by a political optimism that perceives the sincerity of the Palestinians, and the net effect of emergent Islamism in the most positive of lights. This could in fact parallel the bizarre optimism Neville Chamberlain expressed towards Hitlers annexation of the Sudetenland to Germany. The other side, realistically expects a Palestinian state to fall into the hands of Islamists, who will then pursue belligerent policies against Israel.

Palestine > Israel

Isn't it obvious?

Only a fool cannot see the difference between the victims of Palestine and the monsters of Israel.

Zionism is the problem, not the religion of the people who inhabit this land. Muslims, Jews, and Christians have proven they can get along until Israel was formed.

No star or flag for you.

here is one problem... "they will respect and acknowledge Israels right to exist".... all non brainwash people on earth know that "israel" is artificial state... with no right to exist... common sens and U know what i mean....

Dontreally, please watch this video as it accurately describes the situation in Israel/Palestine. It is non biased and acknowledges the good and bad of both sides and even hints towards some solutions. Most videos on this topic are usually biased for one side or the other but this one certainly isn't and I think you should check it out. It's 7 minutes long and I am respectfully asking you to watch it and tell me your thoughts on it.

Please do not dismiss it just because it is I who has presented it as you have done in the past. I am confident that you will consider it a well balanced portrayal of the situation.

Easy to understand, historically accurate jewishvoiceforpeace.org... mini- primer about why Israelis and Palestinians are fighting, why the US-backed peace process has been an impediment to peace, and what you can do to make a difference. This conflict is essentially about land and human rights, not religion and culture. Endorsed by Palestinian, Israeli and American scholars and peace activists.

What are your thoughts?

I kept it civil so I would appreciate if you do the same.

Its all Israel's own doing, they created this whole mess, with their aggressive stance from day one, Israel fanned the flames of the middle east.

Lets look at this from a different perspective/angle, kinda in laymen terms.

Your living peacefully and happy in your house/neighbourhood for years, but one day this new neighbour moves in next door to you, now you can see this new neighbour must be rich, as they have expensive cars and clothes, and keep having renovations done.

Now after a few weeks this new neighbour starts playing loud music, and having loud parties all through the night, now you let this go for a while as they are new, but it doesn't stop, so after a month of this, you knock on their door, and ask them to stop, but they slam the door in your face, and turn the music up, so you call the police but no ones comes out to help, this goes on for another few months so you knock again, and this time you say 'stop' more aggressively, but this time the neighbour smacks you in the face and slams the door on you, you call the police but they say their is nothing they can do..

The next week you see this neighbour has pulled down your fence and put his own fence up and its over 10ft high, but not only that, his moved the fence 10 feet into your back yard, you try to pull down this fence but this neighbour threatens you with a gun, so you write to the local government department, but find that this neighbour has a brother in this government department who ignores you, so you pull down this fence to which this neighbour pulls a gun out and shots one of your children dead, you call the police but they refuse to help, and you soon find out this wealthy neighbour has brought the police and the police say this neighbour claims his family once lived in your house 1500 years ago and they can't help you.

This goes on and on to the point were this neighbour has now fence you in your own home, and is now stopping you from leaving or anyone coming to your home, you start to watch your wife and kids slowly starve to death..

Israel is quite possibly the worst neighbour in history.

I wouldn't want Israel living next door to me, anti-social is a understatement.


Edit:
solution to peace has to be Israel go back to its 67 boarders, recognize she been a absolute asshole in this whole affair and a terrible neighbour and apologize, like so many have done in the last 70+ years to the jews.

Israel has to grow up, and realize she not always right and can't always get her own way.

...not a single mention of religion in the thread, or the video.

You will never, ever understand the conflict between Israel and the Palestineans without having Judaism and Islam in the equation.

One group is dedicated to the annihilation of another. That creates a no-win situation for Israel.
Combine that with the fact that Israel is often her own worst enemy, and you have a lose-lose situation for BOTH sides.

Palestineans are in a similar situation. While they remain dedicated to the annihilation of Israel, there can and will be no peace... and yet, their own leadership takes political advantage from their inherent moral and physical poverty. Again, lose-lose.

This situation will not be resolved until Jesus Christ returns and sets all things right.
There will be a false peace achieved, of course - under the rule of Antichrist, but the problem itself will not be resolved until Jesus returns.

Originally posted by ZakOlongapo
here is one problem... "they will respect and acknowledge Israels right to exist".... all non brainwash people on earth know that "israel" is artificial state... with no right to exist... common sens and U know what i mean....

Israel does have a right to exist. The surrounding nations could also be called false based on your assumptions because they too were drawn up and divided by the Brittish mandate from the old Ottoman Empire...Jordan Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and possibly a few others were all drawn up and divided and renamed from times of old...Now does that make them artificial too...Of course not, but going by your standards they must be !!.

As for a 2 state solution...It's "DEAD"...It wont happen. I heard a good alternative just today where the Palestinian territories become an Emirate of sort like the UAE. It sounded reasonable to me.

One has to remember also that there is no distinct Palestinian people as such as they are a mix of other Arab nations like Syrians, Egyptians etc etc. Arafat himself was Egyptian born in Egypt but called himself Palestinian for politcal purposes only. Most Israel haters say that Israel is artificial for the reason that they were born elsewhere like Europe...well that maybe true, but the same goes for the people who call themselves Palestinians. Way before Israel was created the arabs never called themselves a distinct Palestinian nation or people but were a conglomerate people of various arab nations.

reply to post by Corruption Exposed


Appreciate the civility.

First, the video doesn't address any of the issues I brought up in this thread, namely, the PA's refusal to accept a Jewish state. It is this which encourages Israel's settlement policies in the west bank. By refusing to acknowledge Jewish right to self determination in the holy land, the PA (nevermind Hamas, which it would be impossible to negotiate with) leaves open some ominous questions. Arafat is infamous for having said the peace process with Israel was the "peace of the Quraysh". The 'Quraysh' of course is a reference to the tribe which Mohammad made a temporary peace treaty with.

As for the video. I noted the tone of the video, however, much of it is misleading. Palestine already had a large Jewish population long before WWII, which is not what the video appears to be suggesting, i.e. that Jews out of the blue received a state, as opposed to having worked for one by that time for well over 70 years. The first Zionist congress was in 1897, 51 years before the states declaration. Second, Israel didn't just serve as a safe-haven for Jews, but also Sephardim, the Jews living in the Arab world. Israel's current Sephardic population is around 2 million, which means, they are about 40% of Israel's Jewish population.

The video also ignores how the Arabs lost the land partitioned to them in 1947. Who waged war upon whom? The 1947 partition was based upon the 1937 peel commission. The peel commission, seldom mentioned, based it's uneven borders on the fact that 80% of historic Palestine was broken off from the original Palestinian mandate with the creation of the transjordan. What makes this conversation so iniquitous is that this subject seemingly never enters the topic of discussion. Jordan is a Palestinian state, created out of land initially a part of the British mandate of Palestine. Thus, in context, Israel received a very small portion in the initial mandate, which didn't satisfy the Arabs.

It should also be mentioned, which, unfortunately, isn't mentioned in the video, that the majority of Arabs didn't oppose the borders, but rather, Israel, eo ipso.

As for the Israel as a Jewish state that the woman made issue of? I don't see the problem. This seems more like a manufactured problem. Undoubtedly, there are areas which Israel certainly clean up on. But the reticence towards doing so, in my opinion, is due to the positive distinctions.

For example, China is a Chinese state. A nation-state of ethnic Chinese. Portugal is a Portuguese state, a nation state of Portuguese. It has to be understood in this context. If Israel didn't set a quota, the arabs could - and indeed, WOULD - use the democratic 'equality' to restructure from within the Jewish state. As a minority within the middle east, Israel is the ethnic state for Jews, just as for any other people. As for democratic rights? It is a gross and offensive affront - to the blacks of south Africa, and to Israelis - to regard the situation of Arabs living within Israel as "apartheid". They have in every way shape and form full individual democratic rights. Their only limits are in the collective sense: i.e. of demanding equal rights in the fullest sense as Jews. This is profoundly differently from the Apartheid system in South Africa, as anyone who's studied this subject knows. This difference is also not much different from America being a "christian" nation, or Italy favoring "catholicism", or Turkey, Poland, China and many other countries giving special immigration status to diaspora Turks, Poles and Chinese etc. Is this "racist"? Of course not. Turkey is the state for Turks, Poland the state for Poles, China the state for Chinese. They want to preserve this status by making ethnic distinctions between Chinese and non-Chinese. Thus, this claim is a fraud, and a double standard not applied to other nations which make the exact same distinctions.

Israel, as mentioned, is forced to make these distinctions institutional at some level to prevent an Arab demographic explosion which would change Israel's Jewish character. For example, Israel has a quota for how many non-Jews can move there. Is that racist? Given Israel is the Jewish state, it is not. If it ignored the quota and made no distinction between Jews and Arabs, in the middle east, it's not hard to imagine that in 10-15 years Arabs would become the ethnic majority, and down the road would change the name of Israel to Palestine, the official language from Hebrew to Arabic, etc. It is simply unfair to make issue of this when Arabs at a personal level are given the same democratic rights as Jews.

But as said, there should be more done. There's many areas which Israel could give Arab Israelis more rights which would not impair or endanger Israel's status as a Jewish state.

I was going to do a comprehensive thread on Israel and Palestine, from 1800 to the present but I figure I could lay the facts out in your thread, so those who want facts, can see them for themselves......

Hard to deny this.

The Palestinian peasant was indeed being dispossessed, but by his fellow-Arabs: the local sheikh and village elders, the Government tax-collector, the merchants and money-lenders; and, when he was a tenant-farmer (as was usually the case), by the absentee-owner. By the time the season's crop had been distributed among all these, little if anything remained for him and his family, and new debts generally had to be incurred to pay off the old.

Land Ownership.

It is important to note that the first enduring Jewish agricultural settlement in modern Palestine was founded not by European refugees, but by a group of old-time families, leaving the overcrowded Jewish Quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem. (According to the Turkish census of 1875, by that time Jews already constituted a majority of the population of Jerusalem and by 1905 comprised two-thirds of its citizens. The Encyclopaedia Britannica of 1910 gives the population figure as 60,000, of whom 40,000 were Jews.)

When considering Jewish land purchases and settlements, four factors should be borne in mind:

(1) Most of the land purchases involved large tracts belonging to
absentee owners. (Virtually all of the Jezreel Valley, for
example, belonged in 1897 to only two persons: the eastern
portion to the Turkish Sultan, and the western part to the
richest banker in Syria, Sursuk "the Greek".

(2) Most of the land purchased had not been cultivated previously
because it was swampy, rocky, sandy or, for some other reason,
regarded as uncultivable. This is supported by the findings of
the Peel Commission Report (p. 2 4 2 ) : " T h e Arab charge that
the Jews have obtained too large a proportion of good land
cannot be maintained. Much of the land now carrying orange
groves was sand dunes or swamp and uncultivated when it
was purchased . . . there was at the time at least of the earlier
sales little evidence that the owners possessed either the re-
sources or training needed to develop the land." (1937)

(3) While, for this reason, the early transactions did not involve
unduly large sums of money, the price of land began to rise
as Arab landowners took advantage of the growing demand for
rural tracts. The resulting infusion of capital into the
Palestinian economy had noticeable beneficial effects on the
standard of living of all the inhabitants.

(4) The Jewish pioneers introduced new farming methods which
improved the soil and crop cultivation and were soon emulated
by Arab farmers.

Land Ownership in Palestine, 1880-1948


I thought this was very interesting, to say the least.

Shhhh don't read this post unless you really want to perpetuate the great lie of the Middle East.

Exhibit A:



Exhibit B:

Some Muslim clerics, such as Sheikh Prof. Abdul Hadi Palazzi, Director of the Cultural Institute of the Italian Islamic Community,[1][2] and Imam Dr Muhammad Al-Hussaini[3] believe that the return of the Jews to the Holy Land, and the establishment of the State of Israel, are in accordance with teachings of Islam.[4][5] Some Muslim supporters of Israel consider themselves 'Muslim Zionists'.[

en.wikipedia.org...

According to British-based Imam Muhammad Al-Hussaini, traditional commentators from the 8th and 9th century onwards have uniformly interpreted the Qur'an to say explicitly that the Land of Israel has been given by God to the Jewish people as a perpetual covenant.[3][14] Hussaini bases his argument upon Qur'an 5:21 in which Moses declares: "O my people, enter the Holy Land which God has prescribed for you, and turn not back in your traces, to turn about losers." He cites the Qur'an commentator Muhammad ibn Jarir al-Tabari, who says that this statement is "a narrative from God … concerning the saying of Moses … to his community from among the children of Israel and his order to them according to the order of God to him, ordering them to enter the holy land." He argued that this promise to the Jews is ever lasting, and further said: "It was never the case during the early period of Islam … that there was any kind of sacerdotal attachment to Jerusalem as a territorial claim." This interpretation of the promise to the Jews as ever-lasting is not uniformly accepted by all Islamic commentators [

Isreali vs Palestine : An overview is nothing but a few manipulatiing for arab expansion which is why the Palestinians may say they want peace, but their rocket attacks say otherwise, as well as other tactics.

And bedouin in case people forgot are nomadic arabs who moved from place to place, and yet calls Isreal/Palestine their homes.

So..........back to " my side is better than your side" and let the agendas come forth,.

Cough:

In 1873, Shah of Persia Nasser al-Din Shah Qajar met with British Jewish leaders, including Sir Moses Montefiore, during his journey to Europe. At that time, the Persian king suggested that the Jews buy land and establish a state for the Jewish people.[17][dead link]

Shah of Persia eh.

We all need to know Israel is a land promised by the Lord God to the Israelites.
It is in bible and bible is true.
THere are more Palestininans in Sydney now anyways..and they sure are contributing to our peace of life.

As for negotiations with Hamas:

Can you blame Israel? As this thread argues, the Palestinians have a long history of ideological repugnance with a Jewish state in their neck of the woods. The most vociferous opponents are informed by Islam, which demarcates the world into 'Darl Al Islam', the house of Islam, and Dar Al Harb, the house of war. This is the tradition of Sunni Islam. But, that's just the secularists, like Arafat, who was hardly religious, and Abbas, who chose as his college thesis the topic of holocaust denial.

But Islamists..Hamas? When I read "experts" say that Hamas is becoming "moderate", and that they are showing "substantial signs" that Israel should negotiate with them, I almost want to puke; I feel disoriented. Why would you be so willing to believe appearances? How do you reconcile Meshal's statement to Newsweek - a western newspaper - which claims that he would acknowledge Israel - with what Palestinians are daily subjected to in their Newspapers, TVs, and radio? How can you not see this as an obvious political tactic when their actions flagrantly contradict their words? This is why I don't pay much care to these pundits; it's as if they want to engineer a high probability scenario where Israel would be destroyed by Islamists.

Fact is, Islamists are loyal to the traditional tenets of Islam. This means that it must ALWAYS be suspected that they would put the essential belief of "world domination" ahead of utilitarian pragmatism. That's another thing; pragmatism - which underlines much of world politics, is underlined by a philosophical tradition of secular rationalism. Pragmatism is not universal. There is no basis to the notion that Islamists can be permanently bent in the direction of pragmatism. Rather, given the aim of their religious-political doctrine, which they have stated time and again, their end goal can't be anything other than world domination. This is just a fact. Is it so difficult to imagine that they would subtly and craftily build power until they were strong enough to exercise it without fear of repercussion? They aren't about to subordinate the rigorous laws of Islam - a statist religion since it's founding - to pragmatism. They haven't the intellectual freedom to do it.

Fawaz Gerges, an Arab political commentator, recently wrote a book which I'm a bit upset by. The book overall was fine, up until he has the insane temerity to claim that Israel should negotiate with Hamas, and that Hamas was actually more interested in peace than Israel. This despite the mass of evidence at PMW.org of what Palestinians are daily subjected. So the "grassroots", which he himself admits are slow to come by, are gonna desire peace when their fed antisemitic propaganda?

I find very intriguing this phenomenon of how Side A is being brainwashingly fed the idea that Side B has been brainwashingly fed the fundamental and intrinsic hate for Side A, and are more interested in their annihilation of Side A than their own freedom.

It is like a nice, neat and complete little hate-circle that allows infinitely escalating levels of violence, and a free pass to shoot down any and all offers of peace or progress.

A 2 State solution does not depend on good faith on both sides.

It depends only upon the RULE OF INTERNATIONAL LAW.

To be recognised an independent nation, it comes with responsibilities to the UN that voted for such, and backed by UN Charter.

When Palestinian acknowledges the right of Israel to exists and signs a lasting treaty of peace, Israel will be the first to propose the independence of Palestine, and I am sure the rest of the world will equally vote in favor and end the decades long tragic affair.

Israel treaties with other arab nations had worked, and it will continue to work as long as there is RULE OF LAW in our world. WIth it, it means a bigger and powerful nation cannot hope to bully a smaller nation, or a smaller nation hopes to bully or incriminate a bigger and powerful nation.

In the event of cross border criminal events, investigations and the RULE OF LAW will take place.

In the event of outright war, by either side, then the guilty party will CLEARLY seen to have broken peace and the INTERNATIONAL RULE OF LAW, and the full weight of our united world will come to bear upon the guilty party, and their supporters, beginning with diplomacy, trade sanctions and the final option, WW3 if need be, as WW2 had taught us that by closing one eye to conquests, it leaves one blind and millions suffer later on.

The alternative, which means a one state solution, will ensure screams of apathied, discrimination, terrorism, reprisals, pain and suffering of both palestinians and Israeli will continue for decades more.

Better let them each progress and evolve on their own, with their own leaders taking responsibilities for their own people - to be praise if their society elevates, or get booted out if they fail, rather than incriminations and pushing blame around except upon those who are in truth to be blamed, as happening now.

Originally posted by OrionsWitness
We all need to know Israel is a land promised by the Lord God to the Israelites.
It is in bible and bible is true.
THere are more Palestininans in Sydney now anyways..and they sure are contributing to our peace of life.

What if the Palestinians are the ethnic descendents of the Biblical Hebrews?

Arent Ashkenazi(European) jews not related(Genesis 10) to Abraham?

What about the other 11 tribes taken into exile in Assyria(Iran)? Dont they own the land too?

Pashtuns in Afghanistan trace their roots to the tribe of Benjamin, they seem to have the best claim to the Hebrews.

reply to post by GeneralMishka


The cradle of civilisation that the middle east was 5000 recorded historical years ago, contained more tribes than that of Patriach Abraham alone. Abraham was from Mesopotamia and left those lands to strike out on his own upon divine command. In mesopotamia, there lived many other peoples that spawn the hittites, assyrians, canaanites, etc within that region.

Today, after millenia of intermingling, who can claimed to be direct descendants of the patriach Abraham? NONE.

Thus, best we leave out the family tree for sovereign disputes, and settle whatever facts that mankind is left with, and that's the partition of a land between 2 distinctively religious Peoples to stop them from slaughtering each other and dragging the whole world along.

One day, when they both lived in peace and prosperity within their own lands, they will realized that they are only fellow humans after all, with shared common goals in life despite so much differences, to progress and prosper further.

Look at germany and japan today, and you will know that there is truth in it. Once they were mankind's bitter enemies, but today, they stand side by side in our world's progress and evolution.

So too will the jews and palestinians one day. It only needs the fundie extremists whom are holding them back to be exiled or locked in cells with the keys thrown into the sea.

reply to post by ZakOlongapo

Is Jordan any les artificial - it was created by the British who gave a chucnk of land to a son's a hussain of Mecca. is Iraq any less artificial - It is a combination of three Ottoman vilayets, with no formal ties. Lebanon is a result of a negotiation between the French and the Christians of Lebanon and the current borders of Egypt were decided by the British and the ottomans in the time of Mehmet Ali

Which state is not artificial? how come every nation has a right for self determination, except the Jews?

common man...

reply to post by dontreally


Israel will NEVER ever lose again.
There are many reasons for these but the main reason is because the Rothchild are with them.


Let us wait and watch what the Muslim Brotherhood does now