Israel/Palestinians: Your Take

Non Jews actually in Israel do have full and equal citizenship.

The concern isn’t with them, it is with granting the so-called “right of return” to anyone who can legitimately claim to be a descendent of a Palestinian refugee - many now located in countries such as Lebanon, Syria and Jordan, as well as in the WB and Gaza.

The notion is that if an open-ended “right of return” is granted, Israel would simply be flooded by such immigrants.

The birth rates of people actually in Israel or the WB has often been cited as a “demographic problem” - but it isn’t, because the extraordinary high birth rates of Palestinians in the 60s and 70s were not sustained. Israel is likely to face a problem with the ultra-orthodox Jews, though.

http://www.israeltoday.co.il/NewsItem/tabid/178/nid/24579/Default.aspx

As for Palestinians working in Israel - the numbers are pretty clear:

Some 55,000 work in Israel legally (some 30,000 allegedly work illegally) as unskilled laborers. They are of course subject to exploitation, having few other opportunities. The Israeli economy is, needless to say, not dependent on some 50-80K cheap manual workers; if Israel closed the borders it would suffer a little, but the WB would suffer a lot.

Umm, try reading carefully.

Ok, so for you, a “fair deal” would entail dissolving Israel as a Jewish state. Thank you for finally answering my question.

So when you stated that “The Palestinians have never been made a fair offer,” what you meant was that Israel has never offered to dissolve itself as a Jewish State. That, of course, is correct. Israel has never made a “fair offer” and probably never will.

By the way, I think it would be fair if Palestinian Authority offered me $10,000,000 just because I’m tired of going to work every day and I would like to retire. Unfortunately, the Palestinian Authority has never made me a fair offer.

I’m highly skeptical of this claim, but anyway it’s not an answer to my question.

Does your claimed “every right to defend themselves” include the rocket attacks on civilians; the stabbings; and the use of their own people as human shields?

It’s a very simple yes or no question. You promised me an answer. Now please provide it. I’m simply trying to figure out the specifics of your claim.

So why did Israel withdraw from Gaza? Why did Israel offer the Palestinian Arabs autonomy in Area A? Why not just use its overwhelming military superiority to take over all of these areas and expel their residents just like the Arabs tried to do in in 1948 and again in 1967?

I meant, all residents of territory under military control of Israel. West Bank and Gaza Palestinians at present are not equal citizens of either Israel, nor any other functionally sovereign state. Their movements through or out of their controlling state’s territory are heavily circumscribed; their educational, economic and political activities are legally restricted; they are subject to harsher forms and standards of state enforcement, with reduced or no safeguards for individual rights and due process. And all this is based on factors of birth beyond their control.

It’s not exactly like SA apartheid, but on a human-rights level it seems to share all the most important features.

Luckily for Israel, the longer this drags on, the more difficult it will be to prove a person was a descendant of those who used to live there. With less first and second generation descendants, claims will lessen and be less fervorous

I disagree.

The single most significant fallacy here is the notion that Palestinians wish above all else to become full citizens of Israel, sharing the rights and obligations of Israelis, but are (presumably unfairly) prevented from doing so because the (Jewish) Israelis deny them that right - like Black South Africans under Apartheid.

However, this is a fundamental misreading of the situation. As I’ve said above, what you have here is competing ethno-nationalisms - Israeli and Palestinian. Palestinians by and large don’t wish to become Israelis, they wish to have their own state - either on the WB (those that still hope for peace) or over the whole of historic Palestine (those who hold out hope for an untrammeled ‘right of return’).

I assume you would like some proof of this assertion, so I will offer some.

Take the example of East Jerusalem. Palestinians “residents” were offered a choice: apply for Israeli citizenship - and swear allegiance to Israel and renounce all other citizenships (such as, presumably, Palestinian should it come into being):

Being offered full citizenship - and rejecting that offer - is simply not consistent with “apartheid”. It is consistent with competing ethno-nationalisms. The reason, of course, why Israel offers citizenship (and why Palestinians reject the offer) is that Israel hopes to take all of Jerusalem as its capital city, and Palestine wishes to have at least East Jerusalem as its capital city - and most Palestinians agree with this goal.

Those seeking “apartheid” as an analogy are, to put it simply, wrong. This isn’t a comment on the morality or otherwise of Israeli actions - it is a commentary on the nature of the situation: it is not a conflict by a minority overclass to maintain its status, it is a conflict between two ethno-nationalist groups over territory.

This hasn’t happened, though.

  1. The fact that you’re quoting Bush is telling.

  2. They accepted it because they were getting a great deal. They were the minority, they were recent immigrants and they were taking land from the indigenous people.

  3. So what? Israel was founded through terrorism and commits terrorism itself. The Islamic world does care about Palestine because the treatment of the Palestinians is symbolic of the treatmen of muslims by the Western world. Until this issue is solved, get used to terrorist attacks against the west.

Because I did. I said after World War 2. It’s not my fault you have trouble reading.

  1. You’re so ignorant it’s painful. Israel kills civilians all the time. In their last massacre over 80% of the dead were civilians. Did they do it on purpose or are they just the most incompetent army in the world?

  2. The Palestinians aren’t worse. They’re the victims.

  3. That’s another nonsensical Zionist argument. Palestine was a mandate. Not a colony. It was being prepared for independence as an Arab state. When zionists started stirring up trouble against the Palestinian natives, the British blocked their immigration so the zionists already there tjrned to terrorism against the natives and the British.

  4. The Israelis are behaving like Nazis. Israeli politicians have actually called for genocide against the natives. Hows that for irony.

What’s unfair? Killing civilians is a war crime, but the Palestinians have a moral and legal obligation to resist the brutal occupation of Palestine under international law.

The Israeli Jews are by definition colonists because they aren’t the natives. I live in Canada. My ancestors lived in France. Therefore, I am not a native of Canada.

  1. I don’t believe in Christian states, Islamic states or Jewish states. I don’t believe in White states, Yellow states or Black states. The only states I believe in are liberal democratic states. Maybe you’re just a racist. I’m not.

  2. The fact that israel is offering Palestine a tiny fraction of Palestinian land is ridiculous to start with. It’s the guy that steals 100$ from your wallet and pretends he’s being generous when he gives you a dollar back.

  3. Israel didn’t withdraw from gaza. They removed settlements because they were by far the minority and they had no where else to send the ethnically cleansed Palestinians. They still controlled the borders, they still controlled the waters, they still controlled the land, they still controlled the air, they still controlled medical supplies, they still controlled food… I can go on, but I won’t. Palestine was still occupied.

That’s a really dumb definition, then. By that definition, every immigrant is a “colonialist” and only those who can point to an unbroken line of aboriginal ancestors have legitimacy. That’s blood-and-soil nationalism taken to an absurd extreme.

“Colonialism” is the process by which one nation “colonizes” another. Immigrants are not automatically “colonizers”, they are only colonizers if they are sent from one nation to assert its dominance over another, or its claim to territory; the mark of a “colonist” is that they have a “metropolitan” nation to return to, whose interests they ultimately serve.

To take the example of French Canadians cited by you, their distant ancestors were indeed “colonists”, serving the metropolitan nation of France. They most certainly do not regard themselves, or are regarded by anyone else, as “colonists” today.

I can point you to a UN charter that establishes the nation of Israel. Can you please point to one that establishes the nation of Palestine?

Regards,
Shodan

Cause a lot of them are still alive.

So I take it then, you believe that Jews should be perfectly free to return to and live in Hebron, Gaza, and all of Jerusalem over the objections?

Perhaps. Will you condemn the Palestinian Arabs for demanding that Jews born and raised in Hebron, Ariel, and Efrat be required to leave?

So that I can understand this claim, could you please define the term “Palestinian land” for me? What exactly are the boundaries of “Palestinian land”? And how did it come to be “Palestinian land”?

When Jews were ethnically cleansed from Hebron, Eastern Jerusalem, and Gaza City in the 30s and 40s, did those areas become “Palestinian Land”? Now that Jews have returned to the first two areas, are they now “Jewish Land”?

How many IDF soldiers are stationed within Gaza at the moment? Who administers justice in Gaza at the moment?

Also, please answer my question from before, which you promised you would answer:

Does your claimed “every right to defend themselves” include the rocket attacks on civilians; the stabbings; and the use of their own people as human shields?

It’s a very simple yes or no question. You promised me an answer. Now please provide it

This is true, and extremely unfortunate, but it isn’t “apartheid.” It’s a completely unique problem, one that really isn’t comparable to anything else.

If Israel were to annex the West Bank, and declare it all to be a part of Israel, the problem would then become much worse, for there would be all these millions of Palestinians who would become Israeli Citizens. Then either they would have to be given all the same rights and freedoms of all other Israelis…or else the charge of “apartheid” would be closer to valid. But Israel hasn’t annexed the West Bank, and the Palestinians are not Israeli citizens.

They’re citizens of no nation and no state. It’s a hellish limbo, and ought to be fixed, some day, by the recognition of the independent nation of Palestine.

But the trouble with that is that no one agrees on the borders of that new nation. So we’re stuck right where we are, spinning our wheels in nowhere-land.

You’re still not making a case to rebut my argument that the Palestinians’ crimes are worse than any Israeli wrongdoing. You keep saying, “Here is evidence of Israeli wrongdoing,” but that doesn’t in any way reduce the odium of Palestinian wrongdoing. You aren’t actually addressing the facts, just introducing irrelevancies.

The two are not mutually exclusive. Victims sometimes commit crimes too. In this case, the Palestinians are victims and are committing wrongdoings worse than what the Israelis are doing.

This has nothing to do with anything I have said. I don’t know what you think this demonstrates. Even if everything said in that paragraph is true – it doesn’t contradict anything I have said here. You’re ranting at random, making points without context.

Palestinian politicians have called for genocide against Israelis: more of them have done so, more often. So you still can’t actually address anything I’ve said. You seem to lack any concept of logical reasoning. You can’t rebut my points, but only make non-relevant thrusts that don’t contradict a single word I’ve posted.

You flunk rhetoric 101.

Jesus Christ. Many of them are still alive and their still colonizing land in the present.

  1. In a Palestinian state without bigotry? Sure. Why not. Jews, Christian and Muslims lived there together in peace before Zionism.

  2. Only if you condemn the Jews for stealing land through ethnic cleansing and terrorism in the first place. Will you?

  3. By the fact that they owned it? Under international law. When the state of Israel was declared they owned 7% of the land. The overwhelming majority of land was owned by Palestinians. It was stolen from them by Israel.

  4. The land was Palestinian before the non Palestinian Jews arrived. It wasn’t there’s in the first place.

  5. The UN and even the United States recognize Gaza as occupied territory. Get over it.

  6. I already answered that question. I won’t repeat myself just because you struggle with reading.