Of course not; they are more interested in forcing the local people out & stealing their homes & land.
Who exactly are the “local people”? Would it include the Jews who were ethnically cleansed by Arabs from Gaza City, Jerusalem, and Hebron in the 30s and 40s?
That’s an elitist suggestion rejected by the overwhelming majority of people on both sides.
Beyond that, your own version of the plan would give the Palestinians the vote but render it meaningless by forbidding them from having any political party they’d support to vote for.
Who are the “local people”?
For example, were Yasser Arafat and Edward Said “local people”?
If so, why and what is your definition of “local people”?
The problem is not that the Gazans want their own homeland. The problem is that they want to kill all the Jews, and take their homeland. That problem is not resolvable by your proposed “solution”, because it leaves too many live Jews, in inconvenient locations. The Jews, naturally, object to the proposed solution, since it would leave them dead.
Oh please!
People said the same thing a few decades ago to justify Apartheid.
And no, I"m not saying the occupation of Gaza and Apartheid are the same though they’re both clearly wrong.
So it’s silly for the Lakota to claim that the Black Hills was “their land”?
Similarly, I assume you think that Germany should change it’s name since it currently means “Land of the German people”.
If you disagree, please explain.
What? You mean the Gazans would be happy with a solution that leaves the Jews alive? Not according to their own rhetoric.
Joined late. Why would anyone want to relocate the Gazans? Is this a joke? Do Gazans want to be relocated? Did Egyptians or Israelis mention this idea?
Please… I can go back to sleep.
Yes, you’re right.
The Gazans are a monolithic entity who should be judged by their biggest loudmouths.
Considering that in my lifetime, Israel has had two PMs who were former terrorists, two who were former war criminals, and the current PM is the son of a terrorist and the current Foreign Minister is an avowed fascist who’s political party calls for stripping Arab Israelis who refuse to take loyalty oaths of the right to vote, I’d be very careful about casting stones.
Not all Israelis are hardcore revisionist Zionists and not all Palestinians want to reenact the Holocaust.
I certainly don’t propose giving it back to them. Ancient wrongs can never be righted; perpetrators and victims are long dead and nothing done to or for their descendants affects them. I’ve never supported slavery-reparations either.
I read that as “the land where the German people live,” which it is. Germans call France Frankland, Russia Rusland, and so on, it’s just how they name countries.
No, to all three. No serious person has ever suggested this.
No, the point of the name is that it’s their ancestral home which they refer to as “the Fatherland” just as Russians refer to their as Rodina which means either “the Motherland” or “Mother Russia”.
The Jews believe that Israel is their homeland because that’s where their tribe was born.
I notice you dodged my question, so I’ll ask it again.
"So is it silly for the Lakota to claim that the Black Hills was “their land”?
I was thinking they could have South Belfast.
But there were four questions.
Can we please switch to some other area? Say Tibet? Gaza is too close for comfort. Just read that the 99’th guy set himself on fire.
Sure, why not? They have a much clearer historical claim to it than Jews to Palestine.
The Palestinians, for their part, are Jews – and Arabs, and Canaanites and Philistines and Samaritans and Turks and Greeks and Romans and Persians and everybody else who ever has conquered or colonized or settled the country, descended from all of them in a melting-pot. If we want to talk historic claims, theirs is much clearer.
That might work.
Belfast might be the safest place in the World to be a Muslim since you’re neither Catholic or Protestant though a few Palestinian Catholics might have issues.
Fuck that! They can to to Hell or to Connacht!
How exactly do the Lakota have “a much clearer historical claim” to the Black Hills than “the Jews” do to “Palestine”?
BTW, why are you referring to the land by the Roman name rather than what it was called when ruled by the Muslims before the Jews supposedly “stole” it.
Your statement makes no sense since neither the Palestinians nor the Jews are a race.
Beyond that, were you to make such a statement in “Palestine” you would almost certainly be risking your life.
BTW, you have yet to answer the question as to why you think a “one state solution” which would give the Palestinians a vote but prevent them from being able to vote for political parties they’d want to support would be a good idea.
Since you earlier this thread advanced the idea of a “one state solution” please explain why giving Palestinians the vote but not any political parties they might support would be a good idea?
Why would the Palestinians support such a state if they couldn’t vote for Fatah, Hamas, the PFLP or something similar?
Clearer because more recent. But, as I say, not recent enough to justify giving it back to them. Ancient wrongs. I was trained in Anglo-American common law, where you can get clear legal title to land just by occupying it and using it continuously for a certain period of years (adverse possession); that exists to thwart ancient claims.
Well, what did the Turks used to call it? “Falastin,” I think? “Palestine” is merely that Anglicized. The most ancient and politically-neutral name would be “Canaan,” but that just sounds silly.
When did I say they couldn’t? Of course they could.