brazil84, you still haven’t answered the question.
Let’s say Palestinians are being complete hypocrites. Let’s say it makes no sense why they refused the many offers of statehood before (I think there are good historical reasons why they refused the 1947 plan, and I think it’s dubious that they’ve had many offers in the 2000s, but let’s put all that to one side).
What’s the problem with letting them have a state with these (smaller) borders?
You may be surprised to note that Jerusalem is very important to Palestinians and to Muslims in general. Just about every nation outside of Israel (including the US) believes that Jerusalem should house both capitals.
It’s uncompromising positions like this which is why Israel finds itself so isolated.
I disagree. You are now asking a slightly different question.
The problem is that the state will almost certainly be used primarily for destructive purposes while at the same time there will be no peace; no end to demands; and little or nothing positive for Israel or for the citizens of this hypothetical state.
I would be surprised if it was “very important” in the same way that it’s very important to Jews. Note that Jerusalem was never the capital of any Muslim or Arab entity. It was not even a provincial capital. Jerusalem is mentioned hundreds of times in the Torah; not even once in the Koran. When the Arabs controlled Jerusalem between 1948 and 1967, no foreign leaders ever visited the place. Traditionally, Muslims face Mecca when they pray even if it means pointing their rear ends towards Jerusalem.
Also significantly, the Arabs could have set up a Palestinian State with Jerusalem as its capital back in the 1950s. Instead, they were content to throw all the Jews out of East Jerusalem and deny the Jews access to holy sites.
In short, it appears that Jerusalem is “very important” to the Arabs mainly because they know its very important to Jews.
But even ignoring all of that, it should tell you something that the Jews were willing to give up Jerusalem in order to have a state.
Well they are free to move their Israeli embassies to Jerusalem if they really believe it.
I’m not sure what you mean by “isolated,” but it’s worth noting that long before Israel had control of Jerusalem and long before there was a single Jewish settlement on the West Bank, there was extensive condemnation of Israel just like there are today.
In short, you are just making excuses for the treatment Israel regularly receives and has received since the very beginning.
But let me ask you this: What concessions have the Arabs offered to make in the last 10 years or so?
Ahhh yes, if the Assads go away the evil Sunni majority would slaughter the Alawis… Yep you guys are still using Assad arguments, this has been proven to be wrong inside Syria. I mean it’s been around 7 months that the protests have been going on and I still haven’t seen any definite proof of armed elements in the opposition.
The argument I used earlier wasn’t to point out the similarity of the terrorism your talking about, it’s to point out that both government are lying to stay in control.
Oh and I also like the fact that you think democracy is unworkable in these countries… What, Arabs don’t have the right to have freedom? Are we in some way inferior or are we just too dumb for liberty?
The Assads are thugs, if you won’t accept criticism from the Iranian government on the basis of them being severely undemocratic, there is no way in hell you’re gonna base yourself on the Syrian one.
I agree with the what you’re saying about a credible Palestinian government. But the fact that you’re saying that the PLO are undemocratic is extremely hypocritical also. That is to be blamed on the Israelis because they freaking bombed Hamas out of power! Who were also there because the Palestinians are feeling repressed, Hamas have the image of people who act and not just sit around like Fatah. The more the Palestinians get repressed, the more Hamas gains popularity and power.
Care to elaborate on your first claim?
In 48 they were in control of the country, and out of nowhere the UN wanted to partition the country with a larger Jewish area than an Arab one. Imagine if the UN proposed a partition plan for France giving more than half of the French lands to the large North African minority over there… Between 1948 and 1967 they were trying to gain back their lands, I mean they were fresh out of a war that made them lose almost half of their country, they won’t go to the UN.
Could you also refresh my memory over the offers in 2000? I can’t seem to remember them.
Jerusalem is as important to the Palestinians as it is to the Israelis, it must be the capital of both your countries.
Your last comment is poignant of how Israelis view Palestinians, “good for nothing lazy Arabs, who just want to stir problems in our otherwise perfect country”.
(1) The opposition in Syria is not armed and organized;
(2) So far, they have not slaughtered the Alawites; therefore
(3) If the opposition gains power, they will not slaughter the Alawites.
Does that pretty much sum up your argument or did I misunderstand it?
Well what exactly is the lie being told by the Israeli government? Please quote, link, and cite it.
It might be that Arabs are too stupid, but more likely it’s because they don’t have a culture which is compatible with sharing of power between rival factions.
Of course freedom isn’t quite the same thing as democracy.
Anyway, let me ask you this: Will you condemn Hamas? Will you condemn the PLO?
At the time of the UN partition plan, the British were in control of the area. And there was no “country” to speak of.
As noted before, there was no “country.” There was an area controlled by the Turks and later the British which had both Jewish and Arab residents for a long time.
But more importantly, there is no evidence that the Arab attitude has changed. They feel that the entire area is Arab land and Jews have no business exercising sovereignty anywhere in the Middle East. Which is a big part of the reason why I am against having a 23rd Arab state.
Here’s one:
That’s just not true. See post #242. But even more importantly, the Jews were willing to give up Jerusalem in order to have a state.
I’m not sure I would call them “good for nothing” or “lazy,” but as a group, they need to grow up.
For starters the UN didn’t “out of nowhere” decide to partition the state.
Second, “Palestine” wasn’t a state at that time, but merely a British Mandate and had already been partitioned in 1922 with roughly 80% “Palestine” set aside to create Jordan(then Transjordan).
Third, “they” didn’t consider themselves to be “Palestinians” but instead thought of themselves as Arabs, part of the much larger Arab nations. During the Peel Commission hearings of 1937, which led to the Peel Commission report every single one of their political leaders, including Husseini, who’s considered to be the father of Palestinian nationalism, said that Palestine should have been united with Syria following the end of WWI to create a “Greater Syria.”
Eventually, “they” would come to think of themselves as Palestinians but that wasn’t till much later.
Finally, “they” most certainly didn’t control “Palestine”. “Palestine” was controlled by the British, who turned over control of it to the UN, so the UN were the legal authorities in control of the area.
Well yeah, seeing as how all opposition meetings were mostly promoting secularism and most of them alienated the Muslim Brotherhood’s bid for Syria becoming an Islamic state.
It is not exactly a lie per se, Israel bombs Palestine. Hamas grows stronger, they send one or two rockets to Israel, which delegitimizes Palestine even more gives the green light for Israel to bomb them even more (I would agree that the Palestinian resistance or terrorism whatever you may call it is maybe stronger than the one in Syria), etc… But that just gives Israel the excuse to continue building the wall around Gaza, restrict Palestinian entry to the country and movement inside it. Now, it’s being said that “god knows if they get their own country those Hamas pigs will bomb us out of our sacred right to live inside our holy land”.
:dubious:
What is this culture you speak of? If you meant Muslims don’t share power you’re very wrong about this. As I recall Saladdin allowed all three religions to live freely in Palestine.
What about this Golden age of Jewish culture in Spain - Wikipedia ?
And yes, if Arabs get democracy they will misuse it. “Democracy is a form of government in which all people have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives” I can notice through this definition of democracy that you are the ones clearly misusing it.
In the Arab world, Hamas views are mostly divided, some states like Lebanon condemn them completely. The PLO is generally better viewed but is still condemned in Lebanon and Jordan.
“Country” is also a relatively new term, European nations were called nations, most older history books referred to them as “nation-states”. They never had an autonomous country, there’s a difference. Some holocaust survivor books even mentioned the existence of Palestine back then. It always existed, they always thought this was their land, but it may not have been a country.
They were living peacefully before the partitions, most Arabs had Jewish neighbors.
Not really, there is a Jewish quarter in every big Arab city (albeit mostly empty nowadays). Before the creation of Israel Muslims and Jews were living very peacefully along each others. They were both Arabs (Arab =/= Muslim). Baghdad had a huge number of Jews, here’s a quote from Philip Mendes asserting “that before the anti-Jewish actions of the 1930s and 1940s, overall Iraqi Jews viewed themselves as Arabs of the Jewish faith”. Most of the modern Jewish-hate emanates from the creation of Israel.
I didn’t know about that, but you do agree that Arafat is way different than Abbas right?
Are you gonna say that the Muslims are just lying?
I agree with you, but more importantly we need to instill better school education in the Middle-East. But until the resolution of the Israeli/Palestinian conflict the political stability in the ME is very hard to achieve. I still do not understand why you don’t want a separate Palestinian state, as that would clearly make the area much more livable…
:shrug: Your argument doesn’t make much sense to me. Seems to me that the opposition in Syria has not yet had the opportunity to slaughter the Alawites. So that nothing they have done so far is proof that they would forgo such an opportunity.
Well whatever you want to call it, please quote link and cite it so that we know exactly what we are arguing over.
Did he allow Jews or Christians to succeed to the Sultanate? Or was that a position reserved for Muslims?
What about it? I concede that there have been times and places where Muslims have been more or less tolerant of Jews. This doesn’t contradict my point.
I would guess yes. Certainly the example of Gaza is not encouraging.
I would define “democracy” a bit differently.
I’m not sure what your point is here.
Umm, does that mean yes or no?
Well what did you mean by the term? Apparently you did not mean a sovereign political entity. If you simply meant a geographical region, you are wrong there too. The Arabs were not in control of Palestine in 1947; the British were in control. Before that it was the Turks.
That’s not true. For example the Hebron massacres of the 1920s.
Are you seriously claiming that the Jews exercised sovereignty in Baghdad? In Iraq? Anywhere in the Arab world?
Do you even understand what it means to exercise sovereignty?
No, I don’t agree. How do you feel they are different?
If they claim that Jerusalem is just as important to them as it is to the Jews, then yes, they are lying.
Because it would be used for destructive purposes. If it were to be used for constructive purposes, I would support it. If the Palestinian Arabs announce that they want a state along the lines of Israel, I would support them. By that, I mean they have to offer citizenship and absorption for all Palestinian Arabs everywhere just like Israel offers the same for Jews. They would also have to offer substantially equal citizenship to anyone who happens to be living there at the moment and who wants to stay just like Israel offered citizenship to Arabs who wanted to stay.
If the Palestinian Arabs truly want a state for constructive purposes, they should have no problem with the concept of being dimilitarized for 10 or 20 years until the Israelis have a level of comfort with the situation and are satisfied that the Palestinian Arabs have given up on the idea of taking Jewish Israel by force.
No. The problem is that their aims are destructive not constructive. This can be seen from looking at their conduct over the last 60 years which includes (but is not limited to) the decision to reject statehood in 1947.
Violence happened but they still lived mostly in peace and had mixed neighborhoods. And you can also not that in the Hebron massacre that large quantities of Jews were saved by Arab families.
As a whole the pre-partition era death numbers are largely inferior to the one after it.
Leaving aside the fact that Saladdin wasn’t an Arab but was instead a Kurd whoever told you that Muslims “shared power” with either Jews or Christians during the Middle Ages was either lying to you or they didn’t know what they were talking about.
Yes, during the Middle Ages, Christians and Jews were accorded certain legal rights but they were clearly second-class citizens.
For example, Christians and Jews weren’t allowed to testify against Muslims in court, had to wear special identifiable clothing, weren’t allowed to bear arms, were forbidden from riding horses, only were allowed to ride donkeys or mules, and had to pay special taxes.
Saladdin himself, who you just mentioned, allegedly had one Jew executed for riding a horse.
What are you talking about? There were a number of massacres of Jews in Palestine in the decades prior to the creation of Israel, not to mention the Arab revolt of the 1930s.
Furthermore, whoever told you that “most Arabs had Jewish neighbors” didn’t know what he was talking about. Jews and Arabs lived in separate towns and neighborhoods long before Israel was created.
That does nothing to contradict his statement that Muslim Arabs object to the idea of Jews exercising “sovereignty” anywhere in the Middle East.
By such standards, prior the “Northern agitators” coming to the South, blacks and whites in the South “were living very peacefully along(sic) each others(sic).”
Whoever told you that most Jews and Arabs in Palestine lived in “mixed neighborhoods” didn’t know what they were talking about or they were lying to you.
I dispute your take on history, but even if true, you are condemning the palestinians and the possibility of progress.
It doesn’t matter what the palestinians do, or the merits of any proposal they make…we simply have to play the history card to show what their real motivations are, and that’s the end of the debate.
Not at all. For example their leaders could announce that they are shifting gears; that they now accept the concept of a Jewish State; that they wish to have a Palestinian State in the same spirit; that that Jewish people who happen to be living on the West Bank would be welcome as citizens if they wished to stay; that Palestinian Arabs will have automatic citizenship in the new state just like Jews get automatic citizenship in Israel; that once they have their state they will renounce further demands against Israel; and that given the unpleasant history they are willing to accept demilitarization for 10 or 20 years until Israelis feel comfortable with the situation.
Are you seriously going to dwell longer on this point? The opposition has Alawi elements in it, one of the Friday protests was named after Saleh Al-Ali an Alawi figure largely respected in Syria and considered a hero.
Even the most extreme elements in Syria such as the Salafi 'Ar’our said that he won’t hurt Alawites if they don’t ally themselves to the regime.
No need to quote anything really, I told you that Israel uses Hamas as an excuse not give Palestinians their sovereignty .
I don’t think he outright banned it, but I don’t think they would’ve got to power anyway. It’s like having a Muslim president in Israel, it’s just not viable.
I was actually pointing out that they were allowed to live safely next to Muslims. They were free to practice their religious rites.
Ok, so you said Arabs by culture don’t share power with rival factions right? I don’t see Israel sharing it either. How does this make Arabs any less able to have their own land?
How would you define democracy then?
As you know, in every society some people are for something and some aren’t. Some would say yes and others no, I don’t understand what you’re trying to get out of this.
I’m talking about the people living there, their were Arabs living there and they had land and homes all over it.
I was mistaken, they didn’t exercise sovereignty, but they were living in peace in prosperity. Now we can’t predict what would’ve happened, but don’t you think that if the area wasn’t ravaged by all the wars those countries would’ve evolved? Don’t you think the Jews would’ve been sovereign?
Arafat didn’t want in concession, he wanted everything back and would’ve done it violently earlier in his life. Abbas is agreeing over a smaller piece of land.
They never claimed that, it’s the most important city to them in the country and the second most important in all of Islam. How would it not be their capital as much as yours? I mean they won’t go claim Mecca, a city outside their country like you guys did…
You know that there is just no way they could survive if they could possibly be able to work as a country with all of their refugees outside of the country. What I also don’t understand is why that’s such a big problem to you, as most of the refugees in Lebanon and Syria live in very poor conditions and are extremely hostile towards Israel. They would cause you even more problems!
If you’re talking about the expansionists in the second part then there’s a big difference between them and the Arabs that wanted to stay in their homes. First of all they’re not nearly as attached to them as the Palestinians were (they were historic places in which families lived in them for generations as opposed to the newly constructed buildings of the expansionists), second of all the expansionists are extremely racists as opposed to the Arabs who accepted to live in an Israeli territory instead of an Arab one. I actually want to know, would the expansionists agree to live under Palestinian rule?
I agree with this, I was appalled by Abbas when he said that he can’t accept a sovereign Palestinian state with a long-term Israeli military presence.
Salddin was as much an Arab as Obama is an American, he even has an Arabic name. Now if he
I didn’t know about the donkey/mule thing nor the court testifying one. But the I did know about the special tax one and that could be compared to today’s laws such as living as a resident or as a citizen of a country. I’m not defending Islam or Muslims in general, I was just pointing out that
You said it yourself, “allegedly”. That would go clearly against his personality.
My grand-parents told me that actually, and I lived in Syria you see. The Jewish quarter in the Old Damascus city had the Christian one on the right of it and a Muslim one a bit down the road.
Al-Manshiyya in Palestine was a mixed neighborhood, and the Jewish Quarter of Damascus had a few Muslim and Christians in it.
