Abbas: 'Not a single Israeli' in future Palestinian state [W:60]

[justabubba]

Kerry has just annouced 'ALL' topics are up for discussion. This has to be a breakthrough in and of itself. Failure is not an option, has been repeated over-and-over, let's hope so...

Paul

failure is not an option

how is it anything but the only option?

 

[quantumechanic]

how is it anything but the only option?

Much as I dislike agreeing with you, you get my "like".

 

[gunner]

how is it anything but the only option?

Let's hope those involved in discussions enter the room fully leaving such attitudes, firmly behind them.

Paul

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

or maybe they're just not as bad as you make them out to be...

How am I making them out to be bad by suggesting they recognize the moral and strategic issues with ethnic cleansing?

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

How on earth would Israel assert claims to territory based on the residency of Palestinian Israelis in a scenario where the Palestinians already have their state?!?

because they would still be citizens of the Israeli state

Why on earth would Palestinian Israelis play along?!??

Who knows.

 

[quantumechanic]

because they would still be citizens of the Israeli state

... who are living in a foreign country...
According to the same logic, Israel could also assert claims to the UK because it has nationals living there.

Who knows.

Now you're just being silly.
I know, I know, hard to believe about someone who has a badger with a vagina on his chin as an avatar, but there you have it.

 

[quantumechanic]

Let's hope those involved in discussions enter the room fully leaving such attitudes, firmly behind them.

Paul

Whatever attitude they enter the room in, they'll be leaving it despondant.

It's not that I don't appreciate optimism, it's just that reality keeps smacking it in the face.

 

[quantumechanic]

How am I making them out to be bad by suggesting they recognize the moral and strategic issues with ethnic cleansing?

My bad, you're not.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

... who are living in a foreign country...

Yes, in a foreign country with an extremely problematic history with it's neighbor, disputes over territory, and those disputes having a central emphasis over population distributions to solidify territorial claims ...

According to the same logic, Israel could also assert claims to the UK because it has nationals living there.

Yes, if we ignore the unique history that exists between Israel and Palestine that would make sense. But I see no reason to do so

Now you're just being silly.
I know, I know, hard to believe about someone who has a badger with a vagina on his chin as an avatar, but there you have it.

No, just highlighting why a country would want to avoid any such possible issue in the future. If that makes you get all angry and defensive, it really isn't my problem

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

My bad, you're not.

No ****.

So maybe someone needs to tone down the persecution complex ....

 

[gunner]

Whatever attitude they enter the room in, they'll be leaving it despondant.

It's not that I don't appreciate optimism, it's just that reality keeps smacking it in the face.

That's the most easiest, and path of least resistance, that serves no one.

It will of course, take massive leaps of faith, from all sides concerned; but the mere fact ALL issues-no matter the level of contention-are within limits, offers some chink of hope. It would be a start by the Palestinians recognizing that Israel has an unfettered right to exist. The Israelis need to recognize the fact that there has to be significant adjustment to present boundaries. Then move on...that these issues may occupy 8.5 months of the 9 month negotiating time span, matters little if success follows on.

Paul

 

[quantumechanic]

Yes, in a foreign country with an extremely problematic history with it's neighbor, disputes over territory, and those disputes having a central emphasis over population distributions to solidify territorial claims ...

Yes, if we ignore the unique history that exists between Israel and Palestine that would make sense. But I see no reason to do so

No, just highlighting why a country would want to avoid any such possible issue in the future. If that makes you get all angry and defensive, it really isn't my problem

Forget it, I don't even know why I'm discussing this. It's a ridiculous scenario.

No ****.

So maybe someone needs to tone down the persecution complex ....

Actually I was being coy (if that's the word) and wouldn't have pursued the issue if you weren't being a dick about it, but the reason I think you're making out Israel to be worse than it is is that you seem to be suggesting that Israel considers the strategic and moral reasons against ethnic cleansing of Muslims to be on a par.
They are not on a par. Israel isn't ethnically cleansing its residents because that's not what reasonable, moral countries do, not because they made a cold, calculated decision that it was against their best interests.

To illustrate this point consider what's wrong about the following statement: "Chuckles didn't kill his wife because he realized that the moral and strategic consequences of doing this were against his best interests".

 

[Ikari]

Abbas: 'Not a single Israeli' in future Palestinian state | JPost | Israel News

Not bad for a "peace partner" :roll:

Yeah well Israel keeps building settlements in their region to stir things up. Neither side is really committed to peace.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

Forget it, I don't even know why I'm discussing this. It's a ridiculous scenario.


Actually I was being coy (if that's the word) and wouldn't have pursued the issue if you weren't being a dick about it

LOL@ this. No, I think it was obviously someone getting into their usual fluster when ever this topic is discussed

but the reason I think you're making out Israel to be worse than it is is that you seem to be suggesting that Israel considers the strategic and moral reasons against ethnic cleansing of Muslims to be on a par.

Well, no, I was actually suggesting that both play a rather important role in the decision. If that gets your knickers sticky, that, again, isn't really my problem. But I suggest just avoiding the topic if your overly sensitive nature doesn't allow you to discuss it like an adult

They are not on a par.

I'm sure it depends on who you ask

Israel isn't ethnically cleansing its residents because that's not what reasonable, moral countries do

Seems rather overly simplistic and self serving

not because they made a cold, calculated decision that it was against their best interests

I am sure some did.

To illustrate this point consider what's wrong about the following statement: "Chuckles didn't kill his wife because he realized that the moral and strategic consequences of doing this were against his best interests".

not really equivalent, because chuckles isn't a large group of individuals holding a diverse range of views and interests on the topic ...

 

[quantumechanic]

LOL@ this. No, I think it was obviously someone getting into their usual fluster when ever this topic is discussed

Well, no, I was actually suggesting that both play a rather important role in the decision. If that gets your knickers sticky, that, again, isn't really my problem. But I suggest just avoiding the topic if your overly sensitive nature doesn't allow you to discuss it like an adult

I'm sure it depends on who you ask

Seems rather overly simplistic and self serving

I am sure some did.

not really equivalent, because chuckles isn't a large group of individuals holding a diverse range of views and interests on the topic ...

Wow...
I am so not going to stoop to this level.

 

[L0neW0lf]

Then why have they lived with Muslims among them for thousands of years?

'They' have not lived with Muslims for thousands of years, Islam itself hasn't existed for thousands of years.

Moreover Jew does not equal Israeli nor does Israeli equal Jew, after all most Jews disapproved of the Zionist movement when it came about.

Faced with the option of creating an apartheid regime where Jews would be a minority in their so called Jewish country and kicking out most of the Arab population leaving a token group to create the illusion of a 'Jewish Democracy', Zionists chose the latter then they immediately destroyed the homes and villages of most of native people they displaced and denied them entry ever since, and killed thousands of farmers who tried to go back to their homes and property, hardly commendable.

 

[L0neW0lf]

With the slight difference that they'd be lynched about 5 minutes after their settlements would be declared "Palestinian territory".

Shalom slams

Actually the major difference would be, that those arab people were natives to the land whereas the settlers who created Israel and the ones who are in the west bank right now are for the most part colonialists.

 

[MadLib]

Faced with the option of creating an apartheid regime where Jews would be a minority in their so called Jewish country and kicking out most of the Arab population leaving a token group to create the illusion of a 'Jewish Democracy', Zionists chose the latter then they immediately destroyed the homes and villages of most of native people they displaced and denied them entry ever since, and killed thousands of farmers who tried to go back to their homes and property, hardly commendable.

I don't think you understand that the partition plan entailed not a single Arab having to move. The refugee situation occurred when much of the Arab world - including many Palestinian leaders and soldiers - launched an aggressive war to eliminate Israel. Many left of their own accord, although it's no secret that the fanatic Irgun and Lehi (wrongly) evicted Palestinians from their villages.

The Zionists had little intention of creating an apartheid state. 25% of Israeli citizens aren't Jewish but are afforded the full rights and privileges of Israeli Jews.

 

[Dr. Chuckles]

Wow...
I am so not going to stoop to this level.

in your previous post you called me a dick. So stop playing the victim card

 

[MMC]

So what do you think of Kerry bringing on board a Special Envoy to take the matter into hands?

If both call Jerusalem the final line in the sand. Then what will the Israelis get for releasing of Palestinian Prisoners? Shouldn't the Palestinians be bending in that wind?

 

[L0neW0lf]

I don't think you understand that the partition plan entailed not a single Arab having to move.

Am not sure what this has to do with anything? are you denying that after the majority of Palestinians were displaced Israel destroyed their homes and their villages and refused them entry? and if indeed no Arab had to move then why were people escaping warfare not allowed back?

in what world is a colonialist state allowing a token minority of indigenous people to stay commendable?
Moreover you are confusing multiple things here, most importantly though is the goal of the Zionists and their discourse and the Partition plan, the partition plan is not what the Zionists wanted but what they managed to get.


Ben Gurion speaking about partition once said in a letter to his son:

A partial Jewish State is not the end, but only the beginning. ... We shall bring into the state all the Jews it is possible to bring ... we shall establish a multi-faceted Jewish economy - agricultural, industrial, and maritime. We shall organize a modern defense force, a select army ... and then I am certain that we will not be prevented from settling in the other parts of the country, either by mutual agreement with our Arab neighbors or by some other means. Our ability to penetrate the country will increase if there is a state. Our strength vis-a-vis the Arabs will increase. I am not in favour of war ... [but if] the Arabs behave in keeping with [their] barren nationalist feelings and say to us: Better that the Negev remain barren than that Jews settle there, then we shall have to speak to them in a different language. But we shall only have another language if we have a state.

The refugee situation occurred when much of the Arab world - including many Palestinian leaders and soldiers - launched an aggressive war to eliminate Israel.

Hundreds of thousands of refugees were created before 'much of the Arab world' set foot in Palestine, in fact one of the reasons listed behind their involvement was to stop further displacement of Palestinian people. By the time the Arab armies attacked Israel had occupied far more than what was allotted to it in the partition plan.


Also 'aggressive'? how are people defending themselves against a conquering militarily superior foreign colonial movement aggressive?
Their reaction hardly unique, as Walid Khalidi said
"The native people of Palestine, like the native people of every other country in the Arab world, Asia, Africa and Europe, refused to divide the land with a settler community."


Lets quote Ben Gurion again (in 1937):

In our political argument abroad, we minimize Arab opposition to us. But let us not ignore the truth among ourselves. I insist on the truth, not out of respect for scientific but political realities. The acknowledgement of this truth leads to inevitable and serious conclusions regarding our work in Palestine… let us not build on the hope the terrorist gangs will get tired. If some get tired, others will replace them........When we say that the Arabs are the aggressors and we defend ourselves — this is only half the truth. As regards our security and life we defend ourselves and our moral and physical position is not bad. We can face the gangs... and were we allowed to mobilize all our forces we would have no doubts about the outcome... But the fighting is only one aspect of the conflict which is in its essence a political one. And politically we are the aggressors and they defend themselves. Militarily, it is we who are on the defensive who have the upper hand but in the political sphere they are superior. The land, the villages, the mountains, the roads are in their hands. The country is theirs, because they inhabit it, whereas we want to come here and settle down, and in their view we want to take away from them their country, while we are still outside. They defend bases which are theirs, which is easier than conquering new bases... let us not think that the terror is a result of Hitler's or Mussolini's propaganda — this helps but the source of opposition is there among the Arabs.

Of course they have the moral and just position in as much other colonialists had morally justified their own movements.

The Zionists had little intention of creating an apartheid state. 25% of Israeli citizens aren't Jewish but are afforded the full rights and privileges of Israeli Jews.

Actually they wanted to create a Jewish state in all of Palestine regardless of the wishes of its native inhabitants who they didn't even bother with initially and were forced to acknowledge eventually, and long before they even made up the 32% they did on the eve of its creation, they of course weren't allowed to do that and had to compromise at least in public but never budged about the nature of their state. The only viable options left for them were the ones they went with, that is displacing the majority of Palestinians and not allowing them back in ever since while keeping a small minority so that their state could remain 'Jewish and Democratic'.


Finally there's the issue of the Partition Plan, it being unjust notwithstanding, just a couple points:


1- It is not legally binding, its a mere recommendation that requires the agreement of both parties to be of any substance, just like the many resolutions Israel ignores today for example the one you know where it is asked to take back the refugees.


2- Its is not the first one to suggest partition, there was another one in 1937 which Zionists refused because it didn't give them enough lands though they were ecstatic about the part that suggested forcible expulsion of Palestinians. So if Zionist colonialists are allowed to refuse partition (at a time when Jews were being persecuted in pogroms around Europe) because it doesn't give them enough territory how come Palestinians are blamed for refusing partition when the partition plan in 1948 gave the colonialists who made up a third of the population more than half of the same territory?


3- The Arabs proposed creating a secular state with equal rights which was refused by Zionists, how come should their insistence on establishing an exclusivist Jewish state in other people's lands and refusing the Arab offer is not subjected to more criticism?, but the native majority refusing partition of its land is?


4- The Arabs asked that the issue be referred to the International Court of justice multiple times, and they were turned down.

 

[gunner]

So what do you think of Kerry bringing on board a Special Envoy to take the matter into hands?

If both call Jerusalem the final line in the sand. Then what will the Israelis get for releasing of Palestinian Prisoners? Shouldn't the Palestinians be bending in that wind?

There has been a lessening of terrorist attacks aimed at Israel recently. Israel must surly view that as a concession from the Palestinians.

Paul

 

[quantumechanic]

Actually the major difference would be, that those arab people were natives to the land whereas the settlers who created Israel and the ones who are in the west bank right now are for the most part colonialists.

Colonialism is: "the policy and practice of a power in extending control over weaker people or areas.". While you might make the argument that the settlements are colonialist (with which I would disagree. Israel doesn't need settlements to extend its power, it could just as easily establish military bases if that was its purpose), you couldn't possibly make that claim about the settlers who created Israel.

 

[quantumechanic]

There has been a lessening of terrorist attacks aimed at Israel recently. Israel must surly view that as a concession from the Palestinians.

Paul

You actually think that to try a little less harder to kill innocent civilians is a "concession"?!?

 

[L0neW0lf]

Colonialism is: "the policy and practice of a power in extending control over weaker people or areas.". While you might make the argument that the settlements are colonialist (with which I would disagree. Israel doesn't need settlements to extend its power, it could just as easily establish military bases if that was its purpose), you couldn't possibly make that claim about the settlers who created Israel.

No where in that definition does it say that colonialists have to be needed, also Google Settler Colonialism and the Jewish Colonial Trust.