Yes, I know that. I was pointing to it as an example that ‘what makes a state a state’ is ambiguous in the real world. It’s not something you can point to and say ‘that one is, but this one isn’t.’ It’s more like ‘that one definitely is, this one definitely isn’t, but the one over there we’re not too sure about.’
And I’m aware of that, too.
There is no Indian settlements in Bangladesh.
The similarity between Israel situation and India situation is that both suffer from Islamic terrorism originating from beyond their borders. India can learn a lot from Israel wrt their counter terrorism policies imo though we are dealing with a nuclear armed state(pakistan) which is much bigger and more dangerous than gaza.
The states which had controlled those territories at the time and were at war with Israel ceded rule over them.
You’re right, sorry. The Arab states dissented at the time, unlike the Muslim League in India.
How would you define that? Is it a category with international recognition?
I have no idea what Egypt or Jordan were doing. In that period, they were more hostile to Palestinian autonomy than Israel was.
Presumably those attacks are in response to the blockade. I don’t approve of them one bit.
I think that’s where I disagree with Norman Finkelstein. He says nobody pays attention to the Constitution of Hamas, but I think it’s important. I have a feeling they’re responsible for the destruction of the Crazy Water Park as well. I certainly think that anti-Jewish bigotry informs some of their actions, which is inexcusable (I emailed Norm on this issue and he brushed it off). However, I’d think that this would play an even larger role in dissension in the creation of India and Pakistan, given that polytheists (which the Hindu majority would qualify as) were held in lower regard than “People of the Book” in the Quran.
So if your belief that the Arabs are simply “protecting their borders” is not based on facts, what is it based on? Prejudice against Jewish people? Or something else?
Umm, does that mean yes or no?
Let me ask you this: Do you have any evidence at all that the Arabs are simply trying to “protect their borders”? (Note: Your desire to see Israel as the bad guy in the conflict does not count as evidence.)
That awesome moment when one is accused of prejudice by brazil84. Your own contorted interpretation is evidence only of your jaundiced, Platonic thinking. I responded to your post about “assuming two groups can’t get along” under the assumption we were discussing Israel vs. Palestine, but evidently you view all Arabs as a homogenous group with no discernible differences between individuals within.
It wasn’t quite an accusation, but I am trying to figure out why you assert with absolutely no evidence that the Arabs are simply trying to “protect their borders.” You aren’t even able to specify what borders are being protected. And you even admit ignorance of the underlying facts.
The evidence is overwhelming that the Arabs are NOT simply trying to “protect their borders,” and yet you will not concede that you are wrong.
What could be going on in your brain that you have things so completely, 180 degrees wrong?
I don’t know what you mean by “Palestine.” When did “Palestine” come into existence? What are the exact borders of “Palestine”? And what exactly is being done to “protect the borders” of “Palestine”?
:shrug: There is general consensus among the Arabs that (1) there should not be Jewish Israel; and (2) eliminating Jewish Israel is more important than establishing an (additional) Arab state.
Anyway, I really would like an answer to my questions so that I can understand your position:
(1) When did “Palestine” come into existence?
(2) What are the exact borders of “Palestine”?
(3) Exactly what is being done to “protect the borders” of “Palestine”?
I’m not quite sure why I expected anything but mendacity from you, but here’s what I said:
Oh really, so why did you mention the Golan Heights? Is that also part of “Palestine” as you see it?
Please quote the parts of that article which answer my simple, reasonable questions. TIA.
(1) When did “Palestine” come into existence?
(2) What are the exact borders of “Palestine”?
(3) Exactly what is being done to “protect the borders” of “Palestine”?
Post WWI as the British Mandate through the Treaty of Versailles
1948 Partition plan /1967 Borders Would be a good place to start. The West Bank and Gaza have to be contiguous for a Palestinian State to work. Israel has to have a defensible State, the right of return is a non starter, Palestinians are not going to get Haifa. This is the work ahead for final status negotiations. Israel has been willing to give up land for peace, I see no reason why it would not now. To answer the question, two States made up of the former mandate(approximately), with borders negotiated peacefully, each recognizing each other Sovereignty and probably a shared Capitol, Jerusalem per the Partition plan. I can dream can’t I.
Well there was that Palestinian State pre 67 that the Arab Nations so vigorously fought to defend that the Israelis just ran all over. IMO no one has protected the borders of a Palestinian State as the Arab Nations have been more than willing to use them as proxy fighters and a buffer against Israel, not that Israel is entirety innocent here. Bibi and the settlers really need to quit calling the WB Judea and Samarra and cool it on settlement building because at least some of that land will be Palestine.
That said I am optimistic, the Arab governments are quickly losing their ability to say “look shiny/Israel” and I am sure Israelis are tired of all of this. Will it be hard, yes. Is it doable yes.
Does that answer anything? Hope so
Capt
Not really – newcomer seems to be referring to “Palestine” as an actual political entity – not as a hypothetical entity. His position vis-a-vis the latest conflict seems to be that the people of “Palestine” are merely defending their borders against Israeli aggression. And that if Israeli would only stop its aggression against these borders, then the conflict would end.
I’m trying to nail him down as to what exactly he means by “Palestine”; what borders he is talking about; and so on. Needless to say, he is unable to come up with a coherent answer to these questions.
Why shouldn’t the Palestinians get all of Jordan?
That was part of both historic and Mandatory Palestine and most of Jordan’s citizens are “Palestinians”.
Why not have Jordan be the Palestinian state since it already is the De Facto Palestinian state.
Besides, wouldn’t it be great if we made Jordan into a democracy instead of some half-assed autocracy ruled by a foreign royal family imposed by the British?
Who are you, what did you do with Ariel Sharon, and why aren’t you asleep…? :eek:
I am on the same tack as well, without a clear definition of Palestine and Palestinian we are talking in circles. Also, are we talking about an Israel on the map or not? I do not think that even Hamas believes Israel is going away, no matter how much they might wish to be gone, recognition of Israel is Hamas’ biggest chip in the game. This is why a single state is a non starter as well, Israel would lose the demographic war in a generation or two.
Capt
Well considering that the Queen and Heirs are Palestinian, you can say it already is to an extent. If you want to play lets have a do over on the post WWI era, that is a whole nother box of rocks. A single united Arab nation, bounded by Turkey, Kurdistan, Iran, Sudan and Libya, both Sunni and Shiite or possibly a new Caliphate, good luck with that. If that could be done, I would still put odds on Israel in a fight.
Capt
How is this relevant? It is currently recognised as a state by the UN. There were Palestinian political parties vying for independence prior to its recognition, or even before the creation of the state of Israel (c.f Khalistan/Kurdistan/Bangladesh).
They’re defined by the UN.
Negotiation and war.
What do you consider to be Israel’s borders? Do you believe that a state can expand its territories by war?
Because I’m trying to figure out exactly what you mean by “Palestine” to better scrutinize your claim that “Palestine” is merely “protecting its borders.”
Lol, of course you cannot answer the question.
Lol, more evasiveness. Of course you refuse to define what you mean by “Palestine” to avoid scrutiny of your absurd claim that “Palestine” is merely “protecting its borders” from Israeli aggression.
Anyway, I have no interest in engaging with someone who hides his position behind a cloak of ambiguity. I asked you a few simple, reasonable questions so that I could understand your position and you did nothing but bob and weave.
Welcome to my ignore list.
Can you please point us to this definition? It must have been published somewhere.
I live in California. Yes.
In the operative provisions of the General Assembly resolution 67/19 they simply use the term “pre-1967 borders”. It’s reasonable to assume that’d include the West Bank (with East Jerusalem), rather than returning them to “Transjordan” or whatever.
Do you believe in any trammels on the power of states?