Free Documentary: "Palestine is Still the Issue"

[Jucon]

You've already been answered on Res 242 which does not call for Complete withdrawal from the territories.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/middl...-illegal-even-occupied-30.html#post1058800862

Not that listing (probably 100) UN resolutions against Israel is an indication of Justice nor final settlement.

Thanks, I had not read this thread yet. But what of the other Resolutions I listed?

1. Gaza is Not the most densely populated place on earth.
Population Density per Square Mile of Countries — Infoplease.com

2. Do Gazan's "live in" or did they Create this density?
Gaza's population grows 40% every 10 years. Doubling every 20. Median age.. 17.
Yes, more than half the population are 'Children'.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/middle-east/65725-demography-and-radicalism-martin-kramer.html

Birth control is their problem, Not Israel.
Unoccupied Gaza won't get bigger, they'll have to learn to live in it or migrate-- like other People export countries.

There are now Absurdly 4.5 Million Palestinian 'refugees' (from the original 700k) even tho there are probably only a few thousand real ones left; and WE, the USA, EU, etc are paying for this Nursery called palestine and their care thru our UN/UNRWA contributions.

I'm a bit confused why the density of Gaza matters in this discussion.

As for the few "original" refugees remaining, that is a non-issue in my mind. It is still their land in Israel. That land should be passed down to their descendants. Whether to call these descendants "refugees" is also a non-issue in my mind.

And the reason people are "paying for them" is because their economy and infrastructure have been destroyed by constant tensions both internal and external. Yes, they deserve blame for this instability, but I hold no regrets giving humanitarian aid to the people caught in the middle of this struggle.

 

[mbig]

Thanks, I had not read this thread yet. But what of the other Resolutions I listed?

Your welcome for that and the uncomfortable fact you didn't quote.. Israel offered the terrritories back right after the 1967 war in exchange for recognition and the Arabs refused.

And beside Res 181 creating the two states, 242 is one of the few that matters.
It decided that the borders should be New Negotiated ones and that there should be adjustments in Israel's favor making them more secure to prevent any more destruction attempts.
It's terms put the lie to so much said about the conflict and the terminology used.
and as I said, there are probably 100 resolutions against Israel. "illegal this", "violating that" etc.
Who cares.
If however, there is some specific issue in any of those resolutions condemning Israel, I'd be glad to discuss/debate it with you.
The list is far, far, longer than those 3. But as most of us know, that says more about the UN than Israel.

I'm a bit confused why the density of Gaza matters in this discussion.

Ask Red Dave, He brought it up (probably for it's 'little violin' value) and that's who I was responding to.
But if you go to my string linked about demography and radicalism, I think it does have relevence.

As for the few "original" refugees remaining, that is a non-issue in my mind. It is still their land in Israel. That land should be passed down to their descendants. Whether to call these descendants "refugees" is also a non-issue in my mind.

I disagree.
In fact, even anti-Israel Noam Chomsky disgrees. Says 'return' (Res 194) only applies to the living.
And in practice, all the other refugees of the period have enjoyed No such right.
2 Million Sudeten Germans kicked out/Moved 20 miles have no such right.
Nor do Tens of Millions from the 1947 India/Pak partition.
Nor do Hundreds of thousands of Jews who were forced from Arab lands in 1948.
And yet more.
Quite amazing really.
It's all part of the Revisionism enabled by bias.
Only 'Palestinians' got their own agency and decades of creating a refugee society.
Most stayed "refugees" (a term that shouldn't even necessarily be applied to the internally displaced; Morris) because they were Kept that way by their own arab brethren; denied citizenship, land ownership and jobs. To be intentionally used as they are now; pawns and msg bd fodder against Israel.
Of all the conflicts in the 1945-1950 period only one group has 'refugees' left.

As I've said before here.. there's a 'generational' aspect to this conflict.
Some people just started reading Guardian or message boards in the last few years and have NO idea of the history of this conflict. Nor as above those conflict in relation to others of the time.

and the reason people are "paying for them" is because their economy and infrastructure have been destroyed by constant tensions both internal and external. Yes, they deserve blame for this instability, but I hold no regrets giving humanitarian aid to the people caught in the middle of this struggle.

Yes they do deserve blame for their own failings and as I said above, they cannot reproduce at the rate they do and be self-supporting. None of the other Arab countries can either except the Oil ones and even their GDP is going down.
Saudis GDP per person is lower than 10 years ago.

And Just 200 miles away, Millions more densely populated Cairenes live No better than Gazans..probably worse .. and for the Same reason.
But they don't have a UN agency to coddle that sick culture nor any Jews to Blame.

 

[Jucon]

Your welcome for that and the uncomfortable fact you didn't quote.. Israel offered the terrritories back right after the 1967 war in exchange for recognition and the Arabs refused.

I can understand why they would not accept the conditions, though I do find it unfortunate that they did not accept the terms. A loss of a battle or war is always humiliating.

I can't say if this applies to the situation at the time, but when reading about "Khartoum Three No's" I thought of this...

Have you heard the quote, "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"? Israelis fighters view themselves as freedom fighters while the Arabs view them as terrorists. And Arab-Palestinian fighters view themselves as freedom fighters while Israel views them as terrorists. And it has been a pretty consistent and understandable policy that people "don't negotiate with terrorists". This is one of the reason I can think of why they wouldn't just cut their losses and concede to Israel's conditions. Another reason could be too much pride... Or maybe they just hate the Jews that much for making Israel into a separate state? I honestly don't know.

And beside Res 181 creating the two states, 242 is one of the few that matters.
It decided that the borders should be New Negotiated ones and that there should be adjustments in Israel's favor making them more secure to prevent any more destruction attempts.
It's terms put the lie to so much said about the conflict and the terminology used.
and as I said, there are probably 100 resolutions against Israel. "illegal this", "violating that" etc.
Who cares.
If however, there is some specific issue in any of those resolutions condemning Israel, I'd be glad to discuss/debate it with you.
The list is far, far, longer than those 3. But as most of us know, that says more about the UN than Israel.

See this is why I don't think there will be peace, as much as I hope for it:
- Israel wants to keep parts of the occupied territories in order to create a "buffer zone" in case of a future attack, which is reasonable... but at the same time the Arab-Palestinians appear to want all the land back, including East Jerusalem, which I also find reasonable because the land is considered holy to them as well.
- Israel also wants to keep the Israeli citizens safe from terrorists, so they limit the movement of Arab-Palestinians, which is also reasonable except for that it is also hurting non-terrorist Arabs and keeping them from moving back to their original property within Israel.
- Israel is also blockading Gaza in order to keep weapons out of the hands of Hamas, but at the same time they are creating a very difficult situation for the residents.
- Israelis appear to want a Zionist state, but Arab-Palestinians also live there and I'm assuming they don't like living under Zionist Rule.
- Israel and Jerusalem is important to the Jewish religion, so they do have a biblical right to the land, but Muslims also consider the land holy as well... so who should get it?

It appears there is no perfect solution to me.

In a perfect world, I think the best solution would be to let dispersed refugees to return to the land they originally came from, allow the Arabs-Palestinians returning to their land in Israel to be allowed to freely vote in a Democratic government within Israel, and create an Arab-Palestinian state using the 1967 lines.

Is this possible and logical considering the tensions between the Arabs and Jews in the past? I personally don't know... because I don't know how easily the Arabs can forgive the Jews or how easily the Jews can forgive the Arabs. I consider it a possibility that violence would continue even if Israel gave into all the demands, until the Jews are pushed out of Israel, and I am against that of course.

I dunno... maybe someone else knows a better solution? I just can't see any perfect solutions. eace

I disagree.
In fact, even anti-Israel Noam Chomsky disgrees. Says 'return' (Res 194) only applies to the living.
And in practice, all the other refugees of the period have enjoyed No such right.
2 Million Sudeten Germans kicked out/Moved 20 miles have no such right.
Nor do Tens of Millions from the 1947 India/Pak partition.
Nor do Hundreds of thousands of Jews who were forced from Arab lands in 1948.
And yet more.
Quite amazing really.
It's all part of the Revisionism enabled by bias.
Only 'Palestinians' got their own agency and decades of creating a refugee society.
Most stayed "refugees" (a term that shouldn't even necessarily be applied to the internally displaced; Morris) because they were Kept that way by their own arab brethren; denied citizenship, land ownership and jobs. To be intentionally used as they are now; pawns and msg bd fodder against Israel.
Of all the conflicts in the 1945-1950 period only one group has 'refugees' left.

Well to be frank, I don't agree with Noam's opinion (the bold part). I don't believe anyone should have the right to force me from my land nor take my land in my absence or death, not even the government... and I don't even have a religious attachment to my land. If I died in the process of protecting my land or in trying to get it back, or even simply from old age, I would expect my family to inherit the land.


eaceeace

 

[Gardener]

Well to be frank, I don't agree with Noam's opinion (the bold part). I don't believe anyone should have the right to force me from my land nor take my land in my absence or death, not even the government...

Yet you do not extend that same consideration to Jews who were born and raised in Israel, have never taken anything from anybody, and who you would force to give up what they have to those who were born elsewhere, have never stepped foot upon their land and who have been doing nothing but trying to kill them for decades.

You have simply bought into the extremist rhetoric that frames the issue as a simple minded case of "theft", reduced to such simplistic terms in order to elicit support for one side among those who know nothing of the true history of the area and peoples in question.

 

[Jucon]

Yet you do not extend that same consideration to Jews who were born and raised in Israel, have never taken anything from anybody, and who you would force to give up what they have to those who were born elsewhere, have never stepped foot upon their land and who have been doing nothing but trying to kill them for decades.

You have simply bought into the extremist rhetoric that frames the issue as a simple minded case of "theft", reduced to such simplistic terms in order to elicit support for one side among those who know nothing of the true history of the area and peoples in question.

I believe I clearly explained in my previous post that I realize there is more to this complicated issue than simple "theft". Both sides have legitimate arguments and clearly negotiations must be done to get anywhere. But I do believe that part of the issue is that Arab-Palestinians would like to return to their land (or their family's land) in Israel and have occupied terrotories turned into Arab-Palestinian states. As I stated in my previous post, many things must be taken into consideration before doing such things. The list of considerations is clearly much longer, but those were the things I could think of at the time.

I hope you will read my post again and in the future refrain from attacking my opinion.

 

[mbig]

....Have you heard the quote, "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter"? Israelis fighters view themselves as freedom fighters while the Arabs view them as terrorists. And Arab-Palestinian fighters view themselves as freedom fighters while Israel views them as terrorists.

But I think it doesn't apply that well to this case.
The Palestinian "freedom fighters", Unlike almost all resistance movements in history, target civilians almost exclusively. This is not true of Israelis now or when they were trying to become a state.

And it has been a pretty consistent and understandable policy that people "don't negotiate with terrorists". This is one of the reason I can think of why they wouldn't just cut their losses and concede to Israel's conditions. Another reason could be too much pride... Or maybe they just hate the Jews that much for making Israel into a separate state? I honestly don't know.

We are dealing with a tribal culture despite the fact arabs now have countries. (Google 'Tribes with flags').
A culture of pride and humiliation.
A successful Israel in their midst, not to mention a West that has left them in the dust, is the biggest problem for Arabs.

See this is why I don't think there will be peace, as much as I hope for it:
- Israel wants to keep parts of the occupied territories in order to create a "buffer zone" in case of a future attack, which is reasonable... but at the same time the Arab-Palestinians appear to want all the land back, including East Jerusalem, which I also find reasonable because the land is considered holy to them as well.

Under Israeli rule, unlike from 1949-1967 under Arab rule, All groups have access to their Holy sites. The Islamic Waqf controls the al-aqsa mosque.
But I agree Jerusalem will be difficult, in fact, by far the most difficult issue for both parties in any talks.

- Israel also wants to keep the Israeli citizens safe from terrorists, so they limit the movement of Arab-Palestinians, which is also reasonable except for that it is also hurting non-terrorist Arabs and keeping them from moving back to their original property within Israel.

And this wasn't the case before the second Intifada: yr 2000.

- Israel is also blockading Gaza in order to keep weapons out of the hands of Hamas, but at the same time they are creating a very difficult situation for the residents.

That and to make things more difficult and make Fatah/the West Bank look better so that peace will be achievable. They are indeed squeezing the populous a bit to make them unhappy with Hamas to help Abbas.

- Israelis appear to want a Zionist state, but Arab-Palestinians also live there and I'm assuming they don't like living under Zionist Rule.

I'm not so sure of that. They'd probably like Arab rule, but only one as free as Jewish rule.
Which is less likely... especially if Hamas prevails.
After 60 yrs of Israeli democracy and prosperity, I think they'd be pretty nervous. And not many have fled Israel for Arab rule.

- Israel and Jerusalem is important to the Jewish religion, so they do have a biblical right to the land, but Muslims also consider the land holy as well... so who should get it?

It doesn't have to be exclusive and entirely owned by one side.
You might find this interesting, if not 100% pressing now.
http://www.danielpipes.org/84/the-muslim-claim-to-jerusalem

It appears there is no perfect solution to me.

agree.

In a perfect world, I think the best solution would be to let dispersed refugees to return to the land they originally came from, allow the Arabs-Palestinians returning to their land in Israel to be allowed to freely vote in a Democratic government within Israel, and create an Arab-Palestinian state using the 1967 lines.

That's not a "perfect world" unless you're an arab. It would be a nightmare for the Jews.
Look at Lebanon... even among Arabs of a different religion.
Maybe in 3000 AD.

Well to be frank, I don't agree with Noam's opinion (the bold part). I don't believe anyone should have the right to force me from my land nor take my land in my absence or death, not even the government... and I don't even have a religious attachment to my land. If I died in the process of protecting my land or in trying to get it back, or even simply from old age, I would expect my family to inherit the land.

eaceeace

History happens.
Look at a political map of the world in 1900, 1950, and 2000.
Only One relatively Tiny adjustment for a relatively small amount of people is now/still a Cause Celeb!
Hmmm.

Peace

 

[Jucon]

But I think it doesn't apply that well to this case.
The Palestinian "freedom fighters", Unlike almost all resistance movements in history, target civilians almost exclusively. This is not true of Israelis now or when they were trying to become a state.

I don't agree with it, but attacking citizens, whether with violence or by other means, has been used on all sides in many past conflicts for influential purposes. Examples that come to mind are the use of the atomic bomb on Japan, the 9/11 attacks, Germany attacking Britain's civilians during WWII, or in the invasion of Germany during WWII. Another way of "attacking citizens" (if you want to call it that) is through an influence of their economics; an example that you used later in your post, concerning Israel blockading Gaza. Blockades have a huge effect on the people within the blockade. I continue bellow...

We are dealing with a tribal culture despite the fact arabs now have countries. (Google 'Tribes with flags').
A culture of pride and humiliation.
A successful Israel in their midst, not to mention a West that has left them in the dust, is the biggest problem for Arabs.

And their defeat is something they need to learn to accept and deal with.

Under Israeli rule, unlike from 1949-1967 under Arab rule, All groups have access to their Holy sites. The Islamic Waqf controls the al-aqsa mosque.
But I agree Jerusalem will be difficult, in fact, by far the most difficult issue for both parties in any talks.

And this wasn't the case before the second Intifada: yr 2000.

I was not aware of this. This is why I love forums

That and to make things more difficult and make Fatah/the West Bank look better so that peace will be achievable. They are indeed squeezing the populous a bit to make them unhappy with Hamas to help Abbas.

Continued from top --> Though there are legitimate arguments for the continuing blockade on Gaza (this reason you listed is one of these reasons), the people of Gaza are still suffering. I certainly hope that Hamas is removed, but the current economic and infrastructure, though brought on by Hamas and other groups, is also of Israel's (and Egypt's for that matter) doing through their strict and sometimes unreasonable enforcement of the blockades. There are legitimate arguments on both sides.

I'm not so sure of that. They'd probably like Arab rule, but only one as free as Jewish rule.
Which is less likely... especially if Hamas prevails.
After 60 yrs of Israeli democracy and prosperity, I think they'd be pretty nervous. And not many have fled Israel for Arab rule.

This is why a Democratic government like the one they have now in Israel is ideal, though I personally don't know how much influence the Muslims have in Israel's government currently.

It doesn't have to be exclusive and entirely owned by one side.
You might find this interesting, if not 100% pressing now.
The Muslim Claim to Jerusalem :: Daniel Pipes

Oh I agree. Thanks for the article too.

That's not a "perfect world" unless you're an arab. It would be a nightmare for the Jews.
Look at Lebanon... even among Arabs of a different religion.
Maybe in 3000 AD.

True, but at the same time Israel holds most of the cards, being in control of all the land.

I'm curious what you are referring to when saying it would be a nightmare for the Jews.

You bring up a good point with Lebanon, though progressive Arab integration in Israel could be achieved.

History happens.
Look at a political map of the world in 1900, 1950, and 2000.
Only One relatively Tiny adjustment for a relatively small amount of people is now/still a Cause Celeb!
Hmmm.

True, though I still don't always agree with it.

 

[mbig]

I don't agree with it, but attacking citizens, whether with violence or by other means, has been used on all sides in many past conflicts for influential purposes. Examples that come to mind are the use of the atomic bomb on Japan, the 9/11 attacks, Germany attacking Britain's civilians during WWII, or in the invasion of Germany during WWII.

In your examples of abuses in war and others (Dresden, London, etc) there were ongoing military wars in the main.
This doesn't contradict what I said about the Palestinians vitually exclusively targeting civilians.
All the countries you mention also, and in the Main, had significant military targeting.

Another way of "attacking citizens" (if you want to call it that) is through an influence of their economics; an example that you used later in your post, concerning Israel blockading Gaza. Blockades have a huge effect on the people within the blockade. I continue bellow...

It's not attacking, but again, no doubt in my mind, they're trying to make Gazans see the error of their ways.. and be envious of the more prosperous and peaceful WB.

I was not aware of this. This is why I love forums

I put alot of time in.

Continued from top --> Though there are legitimate arguments for the continuing blockade on Gaza (this reason you listed is one of these reasons), the people of Gaza are still suffering. I certainly hope that Hamas is removed, but the current economic and infrastructure, though brought on by Hamas and other groups, is also of Israel's (and Egypt's for that matter) doing through their strict and sometimes unreasonable enforcement of the blockades. There are legitimate arguments on both sides.

The only way to get rid of Hamas is vote them out.
Everyone feels the people need some prodding.
Of course getting rid of Islamists once elected isn't as easy.

This is why a Democratic government like the one they have now in Israel is ideal, though I personally don't know how much influence the Muslims have in Israel's government currently.

In a poll of even non-Israeli palestinians a few years ago.. Israel was the democracy they admired most in the world.
They have lived next door, read the papers, watched the TV and govts and therefore have a better idea than almost all their arab brethren.
Right now, however, there is chaos and two palestinian govts.

I'm curious what you are referring to when saying it would be a nightmare for the Jews.

You bring up a good point with Lebanon, though progressive Arab integration in Israel could be achieved.

Jews in an arab majority palestine would be cleansed from the combined populations.
Palestinians would become a majority and as even worse than in Lebanon.
Again, even arab christians have been cleansed from PA (and Hamas) controlled territories after Oslo.
Jews would fare far worse.
There can be a 80% Jewish/20% Arab state, but not the inverse.