[quote=“bengangmo, post:69, topic:693778”]
How many Palestinians literally believe that and are willing to accept nothing less?[/QUOTE
According to the most recent polling, taken prior to the recent outbreak of violence, 68% of all Gazans support this. Another 8% support a united independent Palestinian state but are willing to allow Jews to live their with equal rights.
Well considering that there’s a whole bunch of respectable surveys that say around 50% of both countries are willing to accept a two state solution…
Yeah, but what they forget is that we waited two thousand years to take our country back. They think they can play the long game? We INVENTED the long game.
Actually, the most recent survey done by the Washington Institute from June of this year shows that this isn’t true.
It found just 27% of all Palestinians in the Occupied territories favor a two state solution. In Gaza, it was less than 22%.
By contrast it found that 60% of all Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza and 68% of all Gazans believed their goal “should be to work toward reclaiming all of historic Palestine, from the river to the sea.”
Also about 10% in the territories and 8% in Gaza favored "“one-state solution in which Arabs and Jews will have equal rights in one country, from the river to the sea.”
You’ll note that most say they would only favor a two state solution if it was the first step towards “a one state solution”.
Which is a huge turnaround in just six months from this position
From the more recent survey we can see also
This is something that is scary to me
They share a land border and you still have figures like this?
This was the survey that I looked at http://www.fpri.org/articles/2014/02/opening-peace-israelis-palestinians-and-two-state-solution
Another data point
It seems that the positions on both sides have a long way to go before there’s any realistic hope of peace
What change of heart? I think you have a weird defintion of the word oppressed. In what way are the Mizrahi Jews of Israel being oppressed by Palestinians? Or are you asking if I support them attacking the arab countries of their origin? We’re still talking about the israel/palestine conflict right?
I think an oppressed people can continue to struggle against oppression as long as they have the will to struggle as long as they have a legitimate grievance.
With that said, I think that it would be reasonable for Israel to insist that the arab league chip in to provide restitutionto the Palestinians to make up for the stuff that was stolen from the Mizrahi as part of the arab peace initiative.
It was not 2000 years of struggle. Zionism hasn’t really been a movement until the early 1900s. And it wasn’t to expel colonialists, it was (in the end) to become colonialists.
That might be because the Washington Institute was started by folks from AIPAC. They might have an agenda.
That’s your point of view. My point of view is different, and unlike yours, it is also relevant.
Respectfully, if you think that anyone who writes on the Middle East and on Israel doesn’t have an agenda then you’re being extremely foolish. Also, it wasn’t “folks”. It was one man, Martin Indyk, who was the former American Ambassador to Israel, who pushed the Israeli government to make peace and was highly praised by Abu Mazen who wanted him as Washington’s Special Middle East Envoy to try and get talks restarted between the Netanyahu and the PA.
In fact, they’ve gone out of their way to be as non-partisan as they can and only accept money from American sources.
Finally, the polling firm they used was a Palestinian polling firm and to the best of my knowledge they’ve never been accused of forging their research, so your insinuations are more than a little foolish, particularly since you seem to believe that King Abdullah is an honest broker.
Once again, you really ought to read up on this subject since you’re making mistakes about very basic facts.
Even if you accept the idea that Zionism was a modern belief created by Theodor Herzl rather than the idea that Theodor Herzl codified a number of already existing beliefs and put a secular face on them(as Alessan and most Israelis do) it did not start in “the early 1900s” but in the late 19th Century.
Anyway, the idea that Jews are a nation and that their homeland, where they came into being is Israel was hardly a new idea or even something invented by Herzl.
I’m sure you know where the saying “next year in Jerusalem” comes from. It wasn’t something that started in “the early 1900s.”
Ibn Warraq, that post on Page 1 was excellent, but I feel compelled to quibble with your Hornbeck quote:
even if a lot of Palestinians would be willing to accept a two state solution, I don’t know if it matters, since there’s a large enough bunch of them who don’t, and frequently act out on that, and politically that’s their party line, of the whole Palestinian territories
It isn’t one country’s job to sort through other countries’ demographics and opinions and try to respect POSSIBLE disagreement within that country when faced with attempts at annihilation, or for most other geopolitical movements for that matter.
Note that the same stuff happens everywhere else, too. Lord knows our political system has elements where it has gone haywire, directly contrary to the will of the people. I’m pretty sure lawyers are the only ones who like our ridiculous litigation system, ditto our divorce laws. Or how about immigration? In general the public is rapidly losing trust in the politicl class.
When people get struck by these things, that’s it, they get struck. Everybody’s nuanced opinions don’t change the fact that they get shafted by the system. Recently, some prosecutor started initiating ADULT sexual assault charges against a SIX YEAR OLD who was just playing doctor with a friend of his. Turns out the girl’s parents are conneced. I don’t know any sane person who would agree with government tomfoolery, but the kid is still going to be stuck with sexual assault charges for the rest of his life.
The question from there is whether the Palestinians would accept getting a state in another place. If their net opinions are extreme enough, they would reject the proposal, even if offered free land, in favor of continuing their war in the same location. If they take the land, they may still continue their war to the extent that they can from afar, which of course would be less extreme than the former, but still kinda extreme and perhaps a “failure” of trying to solve the situation.
Would not they take their theocracy with them as well as their suicide belts etc…
Heh, I stand corrected.
Relevant in what sense?
So Ziionism was viable active movement before Theodor Herzl? Or was it just a bunch of fucking beliefs? Yeah yeah some rumblings going on in the late 19th century but not really much movement until the 1900’s right?
And how many Jews went Aliyah to Israel before Herzl?
What?
If they’re going voluntarily for a better life, then why would they?
rel·e·vant /ˈreləvənt/
*adjective: relevant
closely connected or appropriate to the matter at hand.
“the candidate’s experience is relevant to the job”
synonyms:
pertinent, applicable, apposite, material, apropos, to the point, germane; More
connected, related, linked; on-topic *
See also here.
Regards,
Shodan
I’m here. You’re not.