I was going from memory, so it’s probable that I didn’t get it exactly right, but any misrepresentation was unintentional.
“Be treated equally” are your words, not mine. I said Ahmadinejad didn’t want to exterminate Jews, which is what my friend carnivorousplant evidently thinks he wants.
As someone else has already noted, that is simply wrong.
I’m no expert on the PLO Covenant, and there seems to be a lot of controversy about which parts are official, so maybe you can cite exactly what you mean. But in every version I’ve seen, there is nothing that even addresses the treatment of Jews in a future Palestinian state. What I do understand it to say is that only Jews present before a certain date would automatically be considered Palestinian citizens. This is analogous to the US policy of only certain people automatically being US citizens, but that policy does not preclude immigration or naturalization, and there is nothing in the PLO Charter that does, either. It seems to be looking backward, rather than forward. And if it needs to be said, it is not a constitution, and it is not even certain that it would have any status whatever in a new Palestinian state, which might have an influx of Palestinian exiles from around the world, who feel no special allegiance to the PLO.
Whether they actually would adopt an enlightened immigration and naturalization policy is speculation. If the Palestinians took over, I imagine there would be a lot of internal debate as to how theocratic the Palestinian state would be, and how punitive they would be toward the people they consider to have oppressed them. I hope that they would become a secular (but, obviously, predominately Muslim) state that welcomes contributors of all religions. I concede that they may not.
My personal preference is for a two-state solution, with the original pre-67 borders plus agreed swaps, Israel and Iran both giving up nukes, and the US closing its bases in Arab countries, and building and manning a big new base in the Negev and guaranteeing Israel’s safety. IMO that is the only hope for Israel to avoid a lot of bloodshed that eventually results in a one-state solution, with Israel the loser.
I hope that was all. He also began the quote in mid-sentence, to make it look like I was asserting a fact, rather than asking a question about something someone else said.
I can’t imagine why folks make this prediction (not picking on you here, it’s something many have said). If anything, the gap in military prowess between Israel and ist neighbours is growing, not shrinking; the Arab nations were unable to defeat Israel prior to its de facto alliance with the US, when the Arabs were more or less united; whatever makes people think a defeat of Israel is at all likely in the future, with the Arabs divided and a de facto alliance in place?
I suppose it is possible (anything is), but it hardly looks inevitable.
The obvious corrollary is that the vast majority of Israelis will not be considered “Palestinians”. The Charter does not state what it will do with non-Palestinians who currently inhabit most of what the Charter states is the “indivisible terrirorial unit” (Article 2) which legally belongs to the Palestinians (Article 3), but the implication is obvious.
Correct me if I’m the victim of tainted sources, but I thought it was common knowledge that the birth rate of Israeli Arab Muslims is such that they will become the majority in Israel within a few decades. I realize that it’s oversimplifying to assume they would all vote the same way, but the point is that it’s not that far in the future when Israel will have to adopt some kind of really blatant discrimination policies against its own natural-born Arab residents to prevent being simply voted out of existence.
If they do, it’s hard to see how even US support could keep it going very long after that. Israel may be strong enough to fight the combined Arab states, but it’s not strong enough to fight the whole world.
I don’t see that you added anything to what I said, except for an “obvious” corollary that is not at all obvious, or even implied. The only thing that is obvious from that clause is that the PLO has nothing against Jews per se, but rather they are against what they consider illegal immigrants.
It is ridiculous to assume that they would be stupid enough to demolish a vibrant economy by expelling anyone not covered by that clause, or to make conditions for Jews so unbearable that they would leave of their own accord.
It’s not impossible that they would set up a Taliban-like government that is indeed that stupid, but it’s ridiculous to say it’s an “obvious” consequence of the Charter.
And I repeat, there is no guarantee that the Charter would have any status whatever in a new Palestinian state. After being attacked at Pearl Harbor, the US declared war on Germany and Japan, fought them ruthlessly, blew hundreds of thousands of civilians to bits to achieve our political and military objectives, and yet we were extremely generous with them once those objectives had been achieved.
That has been the contention forever. In the 60s it was predicted that they would be the majority by 1990.
In 2010, out of 166,255 births, 120,673 were Jews. That’s 72%. Jews are currently 75.6% of the population. I would say that’s an indication that there is no demographic bomb.
Hitler & Mussolini helped Franco during the Spanish Civil War. But Spain remained neutral during World War II. No Jew who made it over the Pyrenees from occupied Europe was turned over for execution.
During a shooting war, the technicality of being “officially neutral” is rather meaningful…
I’m afraid you’re sources are quite tainted or you may be misremembering them.
Right now roughly 20% of all Israelis are Arabs and the birthrate for Israeli Arab Muslims is roughly 4.5 while the birthrate for Israeli Jews is about 2.8.
Yes, the Arab percentage of Israel’s population will certainly increase, but Arabs have no chance of becoming the majority of Israeli citizens anytime soon or even within a few decades barring something really extreme(I.E. mass exodus of Jews from Israel).
Don’t worry, I didn’t mean to imply that it was intentional.
No, they are the ones who are wrong. I seriously doubt they’ve ever visited or talked to any Palestinians on the West Bank who’d find such a comment absurd.
Who is and isn’t considered a Palestinian may be a bit arbitrary since Palestinian national consciousness is something that’s really only come up since the Naqba, but I can assure you that were you to ask any Palestinians in Ramallah if Jews could be considered Palestinians and they’d laugh.
Yes, there have been some people who were of mixed descent who’ve chosen to identify as Palestinians(I.E. identify with the Palestinian father’s side of the family) but those are people who generally don’t consider themselves Jews.
You might as well say that Serbs can be Catholics.
Additionally, some Palestinian activists like to pull out Satmar Rabbis who hate Israel for religious reasons(Arafat had one in his cabinet) but again, that hardly means that they’re considered Palestinians.
Similarly, Palestinians who convert to Judaism are considered Jews, but they’re no longer considered Palestinians by the overwhelming majority of either side.
Well not an obvious corrollary as that was drawn up a long time ago and the postion of the PLO just after it was drawn up was that of binationalism, i.e. one state for two peoples.
The implication is that they do not recognise the right of those who emmigrated in to Israel after 1947 to live there, which I don’t think is that unreasnable psotion given as the foundation of Israel led directly to their dispossession.
Of course nowdays the article exists more as an aspiration than a practical goal and I see nothing wrong with that. If the Jews can aspire to return to their homeland, why can’t the Palestinians?
Emphasis added to the part that is not correct. Maybe you didn’t mean it come off that way, but the founding of Israel did not, of necessity, lead to the dispossession or displacement of any Arabs.
The fact that the vast majority of the population, who have been born there, are classified as “illegal immigrants” doesn’t raise any alarm bells?
Not only is it not “ridiculous”, it will be necessary. How on Earth could the Palestinian people “return” to what is now Israel, without removing the current set of inhabitants? The land is already owned by those who currently inhabit it, and I doubt victorious Palestinans would be happy to live in unoccupied bits of the Negev!
This is an entirely different type of conflict. The US had no asperation to have its population actually live in Japan or Germany. The notion that the Palestinians could “return” to live in Israel without displacing any Israelis simply defies logic.
I think Malthus’ analysis is pretty much correct. I can’t see the Palestinians returning to what is now Israel without kicking out most, if not all, of the Jewish population. And that’s also ignoring the reality that they wouldn’t get back in without there being a huge-ass war to begin with.
Actually, the PLO was repeatedly asked to amend the charter to make it clear that Jews living in Israel after 1947(I.E. Yemeni and Iraqi Jews who’d been effectively expelled) that they’d be treated as equal citizens and not be persecuted, but repeatedly refused.
Furthermore, remember the founder of the PLO and the guy who drew this up, Ahmad Shukairy, once famously declared they would “throw the Jews into the sea.”
Thankfully Fayyad and Abu Mazen are not Shukairy, Husseini, or Arafat.
Incidentally, who was the Jew who led “one of the Lefist factions”?
Do you have a cite for that?
Not challenging BTW, just asking because that’s quite curious.
