Really? Every Palestinian (or even a majority of Palestinians) feel that way?
No I think a better analogy would be if there was a small group of violent Mexican Nationalists that felt that way and most of the rest of the Mexicans would be pretty happy to be able to legally emigrate to America, work vote and raise their families here. But because some Mexicans are really violent (but have no chance in hell of actually conquering America), we treat all Mexicans as if they were part of this really violent faction of Mexicans.
Israel is going to have to engage in more and more reprehensible behaviour in order to maintain their Jewish majority.
No, I wasn’t trying to annoy you and your claim that you don’t think the Jewish residents of the Jewish Quarter of East Jerusalem is a bit confusing since in the post I was asking about you said:
That sentence would certainly seem to indicate that you believed the residents of Jewish Quarter, which was the area being discussed were settlers.
Yes, the overwhelming majority of Palestinians believe that all of Palestine should belong to them. Every poll that’s been taken amongst them says so.
Moreover, you’ll notice that even Palestinian intellectuals who are viewed as moderates in the West such as Edward Said and Hany Abu-Assad oppose the idea of a permanent two state solution.
For example, Assad has argued that the only way he would ever accept a two state solution was if it was clearly temporary.
From their point of view asking them to allow Israel to exist would be the equivalent of asking Algerian Arabs in 1954 to allow the Pied Noirs to have half of Algeria.
When I talk to people from the UN and from DC embassies, there seems to be a consensus that a two state solution with 1967 borders would result in peace in the middle east. There may be some horse-trading around the edges of the 1967 borders but the trades would be based on the presumption that the default would be 1967 borders.
Still curious about this. You seemed quite intent on showing that the facts about Abbas suspending negotiations (on three different occasions, as cites have been provided) were somehow in error. Since you were incorrect, what is the argument you were looking to make, and how is it effected by the new information?
Have you been to any of the rest of Israel? Israel used to be 2/3 Palestinian and 1/3 Jewish. Now almost all the Palestinians are in gaza and the West bank. Perhaps you have a different understanding of ethnic cleansing than I do but if I drove all the Jews in America into Florida, that would be ethnic cleansing too.
Even if this were true (i.e. that folks from the UN and DC embassies had some sort of consensus on this point), why do you think that’s important or meaningful? After all, the only folks who’s opinions on this actually count are going to be the Israelis and Palestinians…and I don’t believe that either group would be willing to accept those terms, for various reasons.
Well XT, it depends on how much weasel wording there is in that statement. The borders will most likely be something like the '67 borders, with land swaps to make up the rest, as per Clinton’s Bridging Proposal. But it depends how “something like” the borders we’re talking. Most likely Israel’s “waist” will no longer be as narrow as it was in '67 and more likely than not some of its more populous towns in the WB will be traded for comparable land elsewhere .
You’d have to show that the Palestinians and Arabs that stayed in Israel following the initial conflicts have been ‘slowly’ and deliberately removed from Israel. Feel free to cite whatever data you think will back that up, but IIRC, Arab and Palestinian Israelis make up something like 20% of Israeli citizens, and I don’t think that number has fluctuated all that much since the Palestinians fled their homes (temporarily in their minds) to join what they thought would be the combined victorious Arab armies crushing Israel and granting them their own home land (instead of the more realistic probability that even had they beaten Israel it would have simply meant that those countries would carve up the territory for themselves).
This map doesn’t seem to bear out the analogy of having driven all of the Jews in America to Florida, but YMMV and I’d be interested in how you make that work.
Er, yes, I have. I get the impression that you have not.
Also you’re post shows either that you didn’t understand the claim I was responding to or you don’t understand the situation in Israel. I was responding to the claim that Israel is engaging in an ongoing “policy of slow-motion ethnic cleansing”.
Now, the reason so many Palestinian left Israel proper for the West Bank and the Gaza Strip was due the Naqba in 1948 where roughly 700,000 fled. IMHO that was ethnic cleansing just as the expulsion of a slightly higher number of Jews from the Arab countries of the time also constituted ethnic cleansing, but Israel is no more engaging in a current policy of ethnic cleansing of Arabs than Yemen is engaging in a current policy of ethnic cleansing of Jews.
Look, you’ve made it clear that while you have extremely strong opinions about this subject, you’ve done nothing to inspire confidence in your knowledge or understanding of the Palestinians or their cause. In fact, quite the opposite.
By your own admission:
Now, for starters there are few things in the world more foolish than relying on wikipedia(the encyclopedia that anyone can edit) for knowledge of any controversial subject that advice increases by about 500% when you get to anything related to the Middle East.
Moreover, throughout this thread you have made posts such as this.
Now, I’m sorry but there are few things that show such stunning ignorance of the situation as claiming you don’t remember “a lot criticism of Israel prior to 2000”.
In fact, as anyone familiar with the situation knows there was far more criticism of Israel from the American media during the first Intifada in the late 1980s and early 1990s then there is now.
Hell, the Reagan was far more critical of Israel during Israel’s invasion of Lebanon back in the 80s then Obama or Bush the Younger have been and the media back then was at least as critical of Israel.
If you don’t believe me, go read* From Beirut to Jerusalem*, by the then NYT Jerusalem Bureau Chief Tom Friedman or* Arab and Jew: Wounded Spirits in a Promised Land*, by David Shipler, Friedman’s predecessor.
Furthermore, you’ll notice that George H. W. Bush clashed with Israel far more than any US President both before and after his presidency.
I don’t mean to come across as rude, but you don’t know nearly enough about the situation to have such strong opinions as you do.
I would recommend reading actual books by respected scholars on the situation rather than relying on “cocktail party conversations” or “wikipedia” if you want to be taken seriously. Failing that, I would recommend visiting the region and talking to the people there and judging with your own eyes.
The problem is that hose ultra hardline guys have held the balance of power in Israeli politics from the get-go. You have small religious parties, ultranationalist parties then latterly settler parties and the really nationalist not-so-small party the foreign minister. These parties have had for pretty much every year of Israel’s existence the ability to collapse the government overnight if they think whoever’s leading it is being too nice to the Palestinians. The ultra hardline guys even extend to American elected representatives who refuse to use the term “West Bank” and instead refer to Judea and Samaria.
It’s not actually a myth that there had been an Arab population in Palestine for generations. We can see from looking at the census records that in the last census before the Zionist movement commenced funding large-scale immigration to Palestine that Jews only made up two or three percent of the population. Starting at post 112 there are a whole bunch of numbers from various sources going back to 1600 in this thread :
As far as the future goes I don’t think there’s any chance of Israel making anything like an acceptable peace offer, as the original subject of the thread shows. That means in a couple of years when Palestinians become the majority and then fail to secure their own state an eventual Jewish-dominated apartheid state. The only question is if or when the world starts to treat it like they did with South Africa.
Slow-motion ethnic cleansing is when you have Israel building Israel-only settlements on Palestinian land, or criss-crossing the West Bank with Israeli-only roads, basically creating Israeli-only areas on land that previously did and legally still does belong to Palestinians. The fact that Israel didn’t wipe out every single Palestinian in their mass 1948-era ethnic cleansing of Palestinian land and that Israel is currently cleansing areas of one ethnic group yard by yard or the fact that Palestinian numbers continue to increase doesn’t alter the fact that they’re slowly ethnically cleansing more and more of Palestinian territory. I already explained about the 22% thing.
I think you misunderstood what he was saying. He didn’t deny that there had been an Arab population in Palestine for generations, or that before the first Aliyah, the population was largely Arab. He’s saying that most of today’s Palestinians are made of recent immigrants. . .that there was large Muslim immigration into Palestine since the first Aliyah, and there seems to be evidence that both supports and disproves that.
Well perhaps its not a policy but I think the effect of the settlements and the laws regarding marriage and naturalization are all geared towards removing Palestinians (or at least reducing their concentration in Israel.
I agree.
This is wikipedia on Yemeni Jews:
“The Yemeni defense forces have gone to great lengths to try and convince the Jews to stay in their towns. These attempts, however, failed and the authorities were forced to provide financial aid for the Jews so they would be able to rent accommodation in safer areas.[45]
In December, 2008, 30 year old Rabbi Moshe Ya’ish al-Nahari of Raydah was shot and killed by an Islamic extremist.[46] After initially being ordered to pay only a fine, the culprit, a former Yemeni Air Force officer who proudly confessed to the crime, was eventually sentenced to death by an appeals court.[47] The murder of al-Nahari, and continual threats against Jews, prompted approximately 20 other Jewish residents of Raydah to emigrate to Israel.[48]
On November 1, 2009 the Wall Street Journal[49] reported that in June 2009, an estimated 350 Jews were left in Yemen, and by October 2009, 60 had immigrated to the United States and 100 were considering to do so. BBC estimated the community at 370 and dwindling.[50]”
The great thing about Wikipedia on controversial topics is that there is an adversarial process that goes into the final product you see. The Pro Zionist folks get to present their version of the facts and the Anti-Zionists do the same and through this adversarial process, you get a set of facts that more closely resembles the truth than either camp’s version. I’m sorry if their version doesn’t comport with yours.
Not in popular media, not like there is now. YMMV but I don’t remember there being anywhere near this level of willingness to criticize Israel during the cold war.
So unless I go to Israel or read books from your booklist, I really can’t have a basis for opinion based on what I read on wikipedia or based on the opinions of diplomats who spend their career on middle east issues?
Sorry, but I’m not willing to surrender the debate to people who claim to be right just because they’ve been to Israel and I haven’t or because they’ve read books and I’ve “only” read wikipedia entries. You can disprove those wikipedia entries or make your argument why 1967 borders are unrealistic but I think there is a term for dismissing arguments because you think that you are more of an expert than me otherwise we would all simply take what Finn Again says as gospel.
The great thing about Wikipedia on controversial topics is that there’s an adversarial process that goes into the final product you see. The pro-Zionist folks get to delete any facts that they don’t like and the anti-Zionist folks get to delete any facts that they don’t like, and you get a mushy pablum that’s free of any facts that people who win edit wars don’t like.
Well then, you have a very different view of ethnic cleansing than most people.
Moving people into an area is not considered ethnic cleansing. Moving people out is.
With all due respect, if you think that there wasn’t criticism of Israel in the “popular media” during the 80s then you either weren’t paying attention during the 80s or have forgotten.
I assume you’d consider *The New York Times *to be part of “the popular media”. I already pointed out to you the way both Tom Friedman and David Shipler, both of whom were Jerusalem Bureau chiefs for the NYT wrote books that were harshly critical of Israel.
I assume you’re familiar with Israel’s first invasion of Lebanon and how harshly it was criticized by the American media.
I also assume you’re familiar with the Sabra and Shatilla massacres which the NYT led world media in exposing.
TIME Magazine was the most popular and influential news magazine in the 80s and they were so firm in their refusal to criticize Israel that they were successfully sued by the then Israeli Defense Minister Ariel Sharon for libel.
The Boston Globe, The Washington Post, The Chicago Tribune and* The Los Angelos Times *were similarly critical.
As for the broadcast media, CNN, ABC News, CBS News, NBC News, they were far, far harsher on Israel than they are now.
I’m sure you remember how during the First Intifada, you’ll remember that almost every night those networks beamed throughout the nation videos of Israel soldiers beating or shooting rock-throwing Palestinian protestors.
You’ll also remember that huge numbers of Americans were immensely sympathetic to the Palestinians during the First Intifada before the Palestinians started using suicide bombers.
There’s a reason why polls showed far more support amongst the general public in the 2000s than during the 80s
Sorry, but it’s not a YMMV situation.
Claiming that there was a “news blackout” of criticism in the 80s is demonstrably false. Moreover, it’s almost inarguable that Israel faced far more criticism in the media during the 80s.
This is particularly true when you remember that there was no Fox News during the 80s.
I’m sorry this is just ridiculous for the reasons Captain Amazing put forth. Additionally, not only can you not be sure that people with axes to grind haven’t deleted parts they don’t like, but you can’t trust the facts that are posted because people who post there can and do lie.
There’s a reason why increasingly large numbers of college professors don’t let their students use it as a source.
No, that’s not what I said at all.
However, yes every reasonable person would argue that reading books or articles by acknowledged experts makes far more sense than simply believing whatever crap you read on a website that anybody can edit.
Sorry you feel that way, but generally when one knows very little about a subject, and you seem to not know very much about Israel/Palestine, it’s considered quite dumb to argue with people who do.
Moreover, if you want intelligent, well-informed people will take your opinions seriously on a subject, then the answer is to get informed on the subject not simply post LOOK WHAT I’VE READ ON SOME WEBSITE THAT’S CONSIDERED SO UNRELIABLE THAT COLLEGE PROFESSORS DON’T LET THEIR STUDENTS USE IT.
