Discussion on Arab/Israeli conflict, split from {Islam doesn't condone terror]

[PHenry42]

Who controlled the land prior to the establishment of Israel? In other words, who could have simply told the people there to leave whenever they decided because they were in charge? Also, who TOLD the people to leave anyway?

The British mandatory administration, and before that, the Ottomans. Being in charge and having the power to dispossess does not confer legality onto it.

As for who told the Palestinians to leave, it's relevant because? Assume for the sake of argument that all Palestinians left without being forced in any way. How would that invalidate their basic rights such as right to citizenship? Leaving your place of residence temporarily is no legal basis for revocation of such rights.

Jews still lived in Israel. This odd myth that the Palestinians were the only people around is laughable.

A myth that is a strawman hardly anyone is even suggesting. A myth just as laughable as the idea that the Palestinians would almost entirely be recent immigrants with no connection to the land. Now, how does a continuous presence of one group in a land imply anything about the individual rights of other people there not of that group?

Egypt and Syria told the Palestinians not to agree to the two state solution originally proposed, then told them not to accept citizenship because they were convinced they would beat the Israelis. When that failed, they didn't seem to interested in allowing the refugees into their country, even though they caused the problem.

As for what Egypt and Syria told the Palestinians, it is irrelevant with regards to their rights. If an individual Palestinian would specifically have rejected an explicit offer of citizenship, then there'd be a case for denying him it. As for whatever Syria and Egypt may "owe" the Palestinians, how does that in any way decrease Israeli liability? The fact still remains that the homes the Palestinian refugees were expelled from are within its borders, and the Palestinians citizens of the political entity that preceded Israel. The Palestinians are not responsible for the actions of the rulers of Syria and Egypt, and thus nothing they do can affect their rights in any way whatsoever.

Again, I don't contend that Israel has done nothing wrong, but this casting them as the big bad wolf against the helpless Palestinians is simply wrong and dishonest.

Which nobody on this thread has done. What's the point anyway of stating that all have blood on their hands? How does that invalidate claims arising from past transgressions?

 

[b&wpac7]

Thank you for your reply. I edited my posts above to reflect my desire to end this line of conversation. It can only end in a flame war due to the hard feelings on this issue.

 

[PHenry42]

Actually, I hate discussing the entire conflict. There are way too many strong feelings on both sides and it will only lead to flames here. I'm out.

What a shame. You seem far more lucid and knowledgeable about the issue than most of Israel's armchair apologists. Something constructive might actually have come out of it.

 

[b&wpac7]

What a shame. You seem far more lucid and knowledgeable about the issue than most of Israel's armchair apologists. Something constructive might actually have come out of it.

My honest position is that we cannot rewrite the past, no matter which side we are on. Israel is not going away, nor could anybody honestly expect it to do so. We have to move past whatever injustices are there, perceived or real. The longer both sides hold onto how they have been wronged, the longer there can be no peace.

Personally, I would be quite happy to see a two-state solution with Jerusalem being an independent city so that Jews, Muslims, Christians, and anybody else can go visit. The people who live there now can, of course, stay. Relief efforts should then be taken to help the Palestinians and Israelis who have suffered due to the prolonged conflict.

 

[PHenry42]

Playing the blame game in an issue as old and as large as the Israel / Palestinian conflict really isn't going to help anything

And certainly won't be solved in a thread on CF

Oh, I disagree. Solving a problem requires identifying root cause, which at times inevitably requires assigning blame. But by all means, let's return to our regularly scheduled exegesis of jihad, which is why I answered your call in the OP in the first place.

 

[PHenry42]

My honest position is that we cannot rewrite the past, no matter which side we are on. Israel is not going away, nor could anybody honestly expect it to do so. We have to move past whatever injustices are there, perceived or real. The longer both sides hold onto how they have been wronged, the longer there can be no peace.

Personally, I would be quite happy to see a two-state solution with Jerusalem being an independent city so that Jews, Muslims, Christians, and anybody else can go visit. The people who live there now can, of course, stay. Relief efforts should then be taken to help the Palestinians and Israelis who have suffered due to the prolonged conflict.

If "moving past the injustices" means that all old claims are given up and the status quo becomes the base-line for future coexistence, that's neither fair nor a solution. That's, rather, an all-out Palestinian capitulation on the whole conflict. When it comes to who did what to whom, the fact remains, the Palestinians are the ones who were ethnically cleansed en masse from a particular territory. The Palestinians do not, correspondingly, hold on to anything that has been forcibly wrested from the Israelis in such a way. When it comes to permanent injustices (i.e. ones that don't end simply because the fighting stops and the smoke clears), there's no question of who has had more inflicted on them.

Peace needs to be based on the fundamental idea that both Jews and Palestinians are fully and equally native to the whole area between the Jordan and the Mediterranean, and have full and equal rights to it, regardless of the present facts on the ground.

 

[b&wpac7]

If "moving past the injustices" means that all old claims are given up and the status quo becomes the base-line for future coexistence, that's neither fair nor a solution.

So it would simply be displacing the current people there to put back probably the descendants of those who were displaced in the first place. That's neither fair nor a solution either.

 

[PHenry42]

So it would simply be displacing the current people there to put back probably the descendants of those who were displaced in the first place. That's neither fair nor a solution either.

No, why do you assume that it would mean that? Life is not a zero-sum game, nobody would need to be displaced. Demanding a 100% Palestinian ethnic monopoly on the entire area of the former Mandate is a position so radical that not even Hamas adheres to it.

 

[b&wpac7]

No, why do you assume that it would mean that? Life is not a zero-sum game, nobody would need to be displaced. Demanding a 100% Palestinian ethnic monopoly on the entire area of the former Mandate is a position so radical that not even Hamas adheres to it.

So, compromise then?

 

[Lukaris]

I'm coming in late on this thread & cannot read it entirely so pardon if I am asking something already known. Anyway, is not the current situation of the Palestinians as having 2 separate territories ruled by 2 factions that are hostile to each other? If so, how can Israel effectively negotiate and address their own legitimate security concerns?

 

[PHenry42]

So, compromise then?

Of some sort. Though, based on the following from #160:

Peace needs to be based on the fundamental idea that both Jews and Palestinians are fully and equally native to the whole area between the Jordan and the Mediterranean, and have full and equal rights to it, regardless of the present facts on the ground.

Which would require mutual recognition of the aspirations of both groups, and an abandonment of the odious idea that the Jews are entitled to more simply because of their military victories, the present facts on the ground, or that the Palestinians have somehow irrevocably lost legitimate rights they otherwise would have because of the conflict allegedly being their fault.

 

[Supreme]

You realise Israel isn't on the Arabian peninsula.

Right?

 

[razeontherock]

But as for the Native Americans, since you asked, last time I checked they had all been granted full and equal citizenship, and quite extensive privileges too. They have all that we have, and more. The injustice that was done them has been thoroughly rectified.

This is still not relevant to the thread, but I would think our NDN posters here would be highly offended if they saw this.

 

[razeontherock]

If "moving past the injustices" means that all old claims are given up and the status quo becomes the base-line for future coexistence, that's neither fair nor a solution. That's, rather, an all-out Palestinian capitulation on the whole conflict. When it comes to who did what to whom, the fact remains, the Palestinians are the ones who were ethnically cleansed en masse from a particular territory. The Palestinians do not, correspondingly, hold on to anything that has been forcibly wrested from the Israelis in such a way. When it comes to permanent injustices (i.e. ones that don't end simply because the fighting stops and the smoke clears), there's no question of who has had more inflicted on them.

Peace needs to be based on the fundamental idea that both Jews and Palestinians are fully and equally native to the whole area between the Jordan and the Mediterranean, and have full and equal rights to it, regardless of the present facts on the ground.

In other words, let's just pretend the whole war that Israel won never happened. Call a do-over, perhaps? This seems to be mere fantasy. Going to war has always had consequences. If you are so fascinated with assigning blame, blame the Palestinians for being so brash as to engage in war in the first place.

Your attitude on display in this post here sure suggests you condone terror, at least in this conflict. The only question is, does it have anything to do with Islam?

 

[FRM48]

No, why do you assume that it would mean that? Life is not a zero-sum game, nobody would need to be displaced. Demanding a 100% Palestinian ethnic monopoly on the entire area of the former Mandate is a position so radical that not even Hamas adheres to it.

Actually it is a ZERO SUM decision for Israel.One miscalculation and her enemies will strike.You have got to understand that giving up strategic land will render Israel indefensible.

 

[Montalban]

You realise Israel isn't on the Arabian peninsula.

Right?

It soon will be

 

[Montalban]

It isn't on the Arabian peninsula,

Who knows if it one day will include the peninsula

 

[PHenry42]

In other words, let's just pretend the whole war that Israel won never happened. Call a do-over, perhaps? This seems to be mere fantasy. Going to war has always had consequences. If you are so fascinated with assigning blame, blame the Palestinians for being so brash as to engage in war in the first place.

That B happening to A is a consequence of A doing something does not imply that A is liable for B happening. The Holocaust too was a consequence of choices made by the Jews.

Peace needs to be based on justice and equality. Apart from being the only lasting basis for peace, those are moral imperatives. Military victory is a consequence of being stronger, more determined and more capable than your enemy. It is in no way dependent on, or a proof, or determinant of, your aims being just. Therefore, the idea that Israel is entitled to anything because of its victories (and the facts on the ground it has been able to create because of them) is utterly antithetical to justice and to be rejected by any moral person.

Your attitude on display in this post here sure suggests you condone terror, at least in this conflict. The only question is, does it have anything to do with Islam?

I have no idea of where I have come off as a terror apologist, I'd like to know that. Really, you dishearten me. I joined this thread because it seemed to me that your query in the OP was in good faith. I still hope it is.

 

[b&wpac7]

The Holocaust too was a consequence of choices made by the Jews.

What choices are these?

 

[Supreme]

The Holocaust too was a consequence of choices made by the Jews.

I really hope you're joking.

I've heard the 'it was the Jews fault!' defence of the Holocaust too many times to care.