Just a quick history lesson, is all. Before the terrorism kicked in, did the Palastinian people, or Arafat, or someone just ask Israel politely for a state? Or did they just start in with the attacks, with no talk about the matter beforehand?
Thanks
I thought they were offered 1/2 the state of israel in 1948.
I’m saying before this newest intifada. 2 years ago, Did they ask Israel for a start before they started killing people?
You’re attributing the crimes of some terrorists to the entire Palestinian people, which is quite unfair. And I’m sure someone will say this sounds anti-Semitic, but they had a country before Israel was there. With all of those qualifications, the answer is still yes, there were absolutely talks before this newest intifada. Are you too young to remember Rabin and Arafat at the White House?
True, when I say Palastinians, I mean only the terrorist groups. However, I’m talking about just within the last few years, about this new intifada
PerrinsAxe, by the way you ask your question I think you are simplifying things to the point where they are meaningless. This is a complex comflict which goes back in history and there have been plenty of demands and counterdemands on both sides. There are some good threads in the archives where you an learn a lot. I just don’t think the question can be answered witha few simple words like “yes they asked” or “no they didn’t”.
No, that IS my question. I’m not looking to RESOLVE anything here. I just want to know, yes or no.
The Palestinians have repeatedly asked for (some would say demanded) a state, and the Israelis reportedly offered them statehood. But they disagreed on the exact circumstances surrounding that statehood.
Just to agree, this issue is far too complex to come down to a simple “did they ever bother asking?” but, since you insist, the answer is yes- the intifada is a direct result of the failure of the 1993 Oslo process that did not ultimately fall apart at Camp David II (like much propoganda says- propoganda that also makes it seem like the Palestinians were offered everything they could reasonably hope for, which they weren’t) but rather at Taba, which happened several months after the whole Clinton-Barak-Arafat triangle just didn’t work out.
In regards to what The Calculus of Logic said, the 1947 Partition Plan gave roughly 60% of Palestine to a Jewish state, whereas Jewish landownership in Palestine in 1947 was under 7%. The 1947 Plan was an offer to take away Palestinian land, an agreement that no people in their right mind would accept. The 1948 war can also be seen in this light; it wasn’t a war for a population to become independent, but rather a war for a population to expand eastward and fulfill a UN resolution. A resolution of the General Assembly (non-binding), to boot.
As a brief digression, the idea of ethnic or religious soverignty is really at the heart of this and most conflicts. Interpersonal relations between Jews and Arabs have always been highly positive prior to, and even during the beginnings of, the rise of Zionism and Israel, and the conflict only exists on a national level. The idea of nations being entitled to states has created this mess, and really, it doesn’t make a whole lot of sense. Palestinians and Israelis will need to figure out that while they are two different nations of people, they must learn to coexist in one, single state or else they’ll never be able to have peace. You might provide Lebanon as an example of a country in which binationalism (or trinationalism, as the case may be) does not work, but I suggest to you that despite all of Lebanon’s problems they don’t have any genocides, things aren’t terrible- and given Israel’s support from the west, there’s really nothing that suggests that binationalism wouldn’t work.
That’s why I oppose a Palestinian state- because the proper solution is for Israel to annex the territories, declare her borders, establish a constitution that guarantees equal rights for all, and work on integrating Palestinians into Israeli society (military and national service are an easy way to get a heads up on that) - it wouldn’t be easy, but stranger things have happened (South Africa)
Israel DID annex the territories, that’s where this mess started. Generalizing is tough, but I don’t think most Palestinians WANT to be normalized into Israel. They want sovereignity and independence. Israel is a Jewish state and they probably feel they’d be marginalized in it. I don’t think many are going to want to join the Israeli army at this point either, given all the incursions, occupations, and rocket attacks.
Interestingly, by the end of this decade I’ve read there will be more Palestinians than Israelis. If the issue isn’t settled by then, that’d change things a lot.
Yes, they asked, but they didn’t ask nicely and say “please”. I hope that answers your question.
Marley23:
Oh? What country was that, exactly? Since the demise of the Ottoman (not Palestinian) Empire, the area likely to eventually be known as Palestine was administered by the British, then annexed by Jordan (West Bank) and Egypt (Gaza Strip), and finally, renounced by those two countries when occupied by Israel. When and where did Palestinians ever have a country that they had any form of self-rule over?
Not true. Israel annexed only East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights (which are not claimed by the Palestinians, but by Syria). The remaining occupied territories were never annexed, nor has any Israeli government ever proposed to do so.
Israel never legally or officially annex the territories. Exceptions: East Jerusalem and Golan Heights, to which Israeli civil administration was extended- this is certainly de facto annexation (although they didn’t use the term). The West Bank and Gaza have never been annexed, in fact they were held in 1967 on the belief that they’d eventually be (mostly) returned in exchange for peace. You could make the argument, however, that the expansion of settlements in these occupied territories is starting to mean that Israel is treating these like annexed territories, and eventually the facts on the ground will create new realities. But it’s still incorrect to say that Israel has intentionally or willingly or legally annexed or attempted to annex the West Bank and Gaza.
Soverignty and independence are myths. In a chunk of land that small, no group will ever be independent from the other. It just cannot work that way.
I’m not suggesting that the Jewish identity or the Palestinian identity be destroyed, but rather they become cultural labels rather than political ones. And you’re right, as a conscientious objector I would never sit here and advocate anyone joining the IDF, my emphasis is on national service- a type of nonviolent civil service that could bring together Palestinians and Jews in a new, secular, Israel.
Let the Jewish Agency and the Palestinian Authority continue to work as cultural organizations for both groups to have pride in and be able to express themselves freely. But it’s time to start moving in the direction of taking ethnicity and religion out of politics and out of governments. Not that it will be easy, but it’s really the only choice.
It is very likely, by the way, that there are currently more non-Jews than Jews in the 1922 definition of Palestine (that is, the land that is to the west of the Jordan that was originally part of Transjordan) - Israel keeps very specific resident population totals secret, and it’s likely that given the high number of (Jewish) Israelis who keep citizenship and live abroad, that Jews are not a majority.
Well, except that the Palestinians who negotiated (say, the Oslo Accords) are not the ones leading the terrorist groups. No matter what the OP wants, there is no simple yes/no answer. Any simple answer can be picked apart as wrong.
This seems to be turning into a debate, so I’ll move this thread to GD.
bibliophage
moderator GQ