The real apartheid state.

[Silurian]

What should have happened after the war was what happened in Germany/Poland and Pakistan/India where population transfers took place. After all the Balfour declaration was meant that the Jews were to have a homeland will before the Holocaust ever happened. Let's not forget that under Muslim Rule Jerusalem was basically just a minor insignificant town that was neglected and had a significant Jewish population.


But I have a question for you. Is it acceptable that right now that abut 90% of Arab nations have no Jewish population and Gaza where Jews have had an historical connection to the land now is Judenfrei. Th e Thing is that Israel is most definitely not Arab free since it has a sizeable Arab population who are treated far better than Arabs are treated in their own countries, especially if they are Palestinian. http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/1422/palestinians-in-arab-world

So you think it is right that Jews were transferred from Arab countries and Palestinians were transferred from Palestine.

In answer to your question I do not think you are right to support ethnic cleansing of Jews from Arab countries and Palestinians from Palestine.



Jerusalem was controlled by the Ottoman empire before it was captured during WW1. The Ottoman Empire was known as the sick man of Europe. The Palestinians are not responsible for the management of Palestine by their former imperial masters.

 

[Tahuti]

I heard this argument many times and still don't see any logic in it. Palestinians's home is Palestine not Jordan, Iraq or Sudan. They won't accept another place and I don't think those countries want them either. Palestinians were/are supported by the rest of the Arab world (at least officially, archives shows that this was not always the case unofficially), but that does not make the Arab world part of the "cake" to share. After all, The US are supportive of Israel and there are more US states than Arab countries, so if I follow this argument, if there are room for the Palestinians elsewhere in the Mid-East, there is even more rooms for the Israeli in the Mid-West.

Thus, you admit the Arab countries have no ideologically consistent reason for not extending any recognition to Israel, regardless of its policies towards Palestinians, since you have shown it is not their problem: The Palestinian home is Palestine, not any Arab country. The idea that Palestine is Arab is convenient fiction not in line with realities on the ground.

What if the Palestinian refugees moved back to Israel and be granted no more political rights than in Jordan or Lebanon? After all, Israel is a Jewish state, not a Palestinian state, just like Jordan is an Arab state and not a Palestinian state; Emir Faisal was not interested in the Holy Land, and granted all of it and more to the future Zionist state in the Weissman-Faisal accords of 1919, because he did not consider Palestinians to be proper Arabs, and thus it was not his concern.

That all said, I sincerely do not think that any Palestinian state dominated by Palestinians will be a viable state considering the political elite the Palestinians currently have and will likely gain control over such a state: At best, it will be another Somalia, given how the presence of the IDF is the only thing what keeps West-Bank from turning into exactly that. Another Jewish state may emerge from that the unified Palestinian state, though only after another bloody war in which combatants fight like peasants.

If it was just for a "safe sanctuary", NYC is certainly the most suitable place.

You have to view it from the perspective of the 1940s, where most developed countries had tight restrictions on immigration from anywhere else than Western Europe, including refugees. Besides, NYC has very little connection with Jewish history, unless you have very short termist view of history.

 

[Tee Kay]

At best, it will be another Somalia, given how the presence of the IDF is the only thing what keeps West-Bank from turning into exactly that.

Funny, 'cause there is already an internationally-recognised Palestinian national government that does not control its territory due to the presence of the IDF, in which case the IDF is more like the Somali warlords in this analogy (and Hamas is Al-Shebaab)

 

[Mouthwash]

Funny, 'cause there is already an internationally-recognised Palestinian national government that does not control its territory due to the presence of the IDF, in which case the IDF is more like the Somali warlords in this analogy (and Hamas is Al-Shebaab)

I'm sorry, the argument here is what?

 

[Tee Kay]

Kaiserguard thinks an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank will turn into Somalia. Ie: a country whose internationally-recognised government does not actually exercise control over much of its territory.

 

[Mouthwash]

Kaiserguard thinks an independent Palestinian state in the West Bank will turn into Somalia. Ie: a country whose internationally-recognised government does not actually exercise control over much of its territory.

There's nothing really wrong with that definition. Japan didn't become Somalia during its occupation after WWII. What he means is that it would collapse into chaos and infighting. Hardly a difficult connection to make.

 

[Tee Kay]

A little bit of infighting can be beneficial. It might not be such a bad thing for Fatah to win Israeli recognition for Palestinian statehood, then with renewed legitimacy crush Hamas on the battlefield. Just saying.

 

[Mouthwash]

A little bit of infighting can be beneficial. It might not be such a bad thing for Fatah to win Israeli recognition for Palestinian statehood, then with renewed legitimacy crush Hamas on the battlefield. Just saying.

Not even going to try.

 

[Bootstoots]

I haven't bothered to wade through the whole thread, since it veered off Liberia and started being about Israel and Zionists. But, in case it hasn't been posted already, the Vice Guide to Liberia is one of my favorite documentaries ever. It's real life dark comedy as I've never seen before. It features the aftermath of the Liberian Civil War: hundreds of thousands of fatalities, cannibalism, General Butt Naked (who claimed going into war naked would provide protection from bullets), several General Bin Ladens, people pooping on the beach in Monrovia (even the mayor poops on the beach, to be with the people!), malaria-infested swamps, drugs, and an interview with prostitutes and pimps that ends with the journalists barely escaping with their lives. And yet it ends with a somewhat positive message: the country is holding together under a fragile truce, reasonable elections have been held, and some antagonists have begun to forgive each other.

http://www.vice.com/the-vice-guide-to-travel/the-vice-guide-to-liberia-full-length

Anyway, resume bickering about Israel. And don't immigrate to Liberia. It's not worth it.

 

[Tahuti]

A little bit of infighting can be beneficial. It might not be such a bad thing for Fatah to win Israeli recognition for Palestinian statehood, then with renewed legitimacy crush Hamas on the battlefield. Just saying.

Already done in West-Bank.

Funny, 'cause there is already an internationally-recognised Palestinian national government that does not control its territory due to the presence of the IDF, in which case the IDF is more like the Somali warlords in this analogy (and Hamas is Al-Shebaab)

The IDF are more like the AU and UN forces in Somalia. The settlers would be more like the warlords in the West-Bank scenario. Assumming the IDF left West-Bank while leaving the settlers to Palestine's responsibility, the Palestinian National Authority would immediately become a sham government with the main infighting between Fatah, the settlers and Hamas. Idem dito if Palestine were to annex Israel, with the remnants of Israel fighting with Fatah and Hamas.

Anyway, resume bickering about Israel. And don't immigrate to Liberia. It's not worth it.

Liberia could become the world's Jewish state!

 

[Formaldehyde]

I haven't bothered to wade through the whole thread, since it veered off Liberia and started being about Israel and Zionists...

I guess you didn't notice this thread has always been about Israel. That it was intended as a rationalization and defense of their own form of apartheid.

Liberia could become the world's Jewish state!

I am still in favor of giving them one of the Southern states, since so many evangelical Christians now support Israel no matter what it does due to the apocalypse, which is apparently supposed to occur any day now.

 

[Bootstoots]

I guess you didn't notice this thread has always been about Israel. That it was intended as a rationalization and defense of their own form of apartheid.

Yes, I did catch that. And it was the same old arguments over and over, which I found less interesting than Liberia. That's why I dropped something about Liberia into the thread. Technically, it was on topic.

 

[HannibalBarka]

Thus, you admit the Arab countries have no ideologically consistent reason for not extending any recognition to Israel, regardless of its policies towards Palestinians, since you have shown it is not their problem: The Palestinian home is Palestine, not any Arab country. The idea that Palestine is Arab is convenient fiction not in line with realities on the ground.

That is not what I said. Arabs do see Palestine as an Arab state (as Palestinians see themselves as being Arabs, do speak arab etc). They also consider the Israeli/Palestinian problem as an Arab problem as well. But it does not follow that they consider All arabs alike and that a Palestinian can be moved to Oman or vice versa. Europeans can be very concerned about a problem concerning one of the European countries, but it does not follow that they will accept all the people of that country to move inside their country.

What if the Palestinian refugees moved back to Israel and be granted no more political rights than in Jordan or Lebanon? After all, Israel is a Jewish state, not a Palestinian state, just like Jordan is an Arab state and not a Palestinian state; Emir Faisal was not interested in the Holy Land, and granted all of it and more to the future Zionist state in the Weissman-Faisal accords of 1919, because he did not consider Palestinians to be proper Arabs, and thus it was not his concern .

Faisal did not consider Palestinian to be proper Jordan Hashemites, he did indeed consider them Arabs (as they are, I don’t really how that can be contested &#61516. The statue of the Palestinians refugee in Israel if they manage to return (which is realistically not going to happen) is going to depend on the global accord that will let them do so. We can’t compare their potential status there to theirs in Jordan today as in the former case they are supposed to return home and in the latter they are refugee.

That all said, I sincerely do not think that any Palestinian state dominated by Palestinians will be a viable state considering the political elite the Palestinians currently have and will likely gain control over such a state: At best, it will be another Somalia, given how the presence of the IDF is the only thing what keeps West-Bank from turning into exactly that. Another Jewish state may emerge from that the unified Palestinian state, though only after another bloody war in which combatants fight like peasants.

What makes you think so? The root of all problems the Palestinians have today is the fact that they have no state, or more importantly that they cannot find a solution acceptable by all parties (that being said, the problem is exactly the same for Israeli, only difference is that one can decently live with the statusquo and not the other). If an acceptable solution could be found, I think a viable state can exist there. It won’t be Switzerland, and it is likely hatred will last for many years between neighbours but at the end it may work. In all cases, we don’t really have any better alternative, do we?

You have to view it from the perspective of the 1940s, where most developed countries had tight restrictions on immigration from anywhere else than Western Europe, including refugees. Besides, NYC has very little connection with Jewish history, unless you have very short termist view of history.

I know that NYC is not a viable option for Jews, It was sarcasm . I found the “option” “Palestinian move to the vast Arab World” no better though, and that is why I compared the two.

 

[Domen]

Liberia was created through brutal conquest of local African tribes by Afro-American invaders - in case if you didn't know.

Afro-Americans were taking land from Africans and forcing them to escape further into the jungle, or enslaving them.

Slavery was initially legal in Liberia, just like in the USA. In Liberia slave-owners were Afro-Americans, while slaves were Africans.

 

[Tahuti]

That is not what I said. Arabs do see Palestine as an Arab state (as Palestinians see themselves as being Arabs, do speak arab etc). They also consider the Israeli/Palestinian problem as an Arab problem as well. But it does not follow that they consider All arabs alike and that a Palestinian can be moved to Oman or vice versa. Europeans can be very concerned about a problem concerning one of the European countries, but it does not follow that they will accept all the people of that country to move inside their country.

Speaking Arab does not render one Arab, just as much as Latin American who speaks Spanish is not a Spaniard. The Arab identity was until recently limited to the Arabian peninsula. It is a political project, like European integration. However, European integration doesn't pose the liability to minorities and neighbouring countries as Modern Pan-Arabism did to Iran, Turkey, Israel and blacks in Sudan and Kurds in Iraq.

In fact, Saddam Hussein sought to make Iraq view itself more as Mesopotamian instead of Arabic. Likewise, there are movements in Lebanon which stress Lebanon's Phoenician identity.

Faisal did not consider Palestinian to be proper Jordan Hashemites, he did indeed consider them Arabs (as they are, I don’t really how that can be contested &#61516. The statue of the Palestinians refugee in Israel if they manage to return (which is realistically not going to happen) is going to depend on the global accord that will let them do so. We can’t compare their potential status there to theirs in Jordan today as in the former case they are supposed to return home and in the latter they are refugee.

No, Emir Faisal did not consider Palestinians to be Arabs at all, nor anyone living to the west of the Red sea, too boot. His descendents would later claim parts of Palestine as part of Jordan, that much is true.

What makes you think so? The root of all problems the Palestinians have today is the fact that they have no state, or more importantly that they cannot find a solution acceptable by all parties (that being said, the problem is exactly the same for Israeli, only difference is that one can decently live with the statusquo and not the other). If an acceptable solution could be found, I think a viable state can exist there. It won’t be Switzerland, and it is likely hatred will last for many years between neighbours but at the end it may work. In all cases, we don’t really have any better alternative, do we?

The root of all problems is that the institution (namely, Israel) capable of taking charge of the situation have been rendered powerless under international consensus. Every Palestinian faction (I include the Jewish settlers as one for the sake of simplicity, alongside the PLO and Hamas) is armed to the teeth and will fight to the death with each other. Not really a recipe for a healthy state. It is not really true Somalia is completely anarchistic: Rather, the government struggles with organisations that seek governmental control over Somalia. It will be also the case in any conceivable Palestinian state.

And let's face it: The settlers cannot be removed from West Bank without triggering a civil war. While their presence is formally illegal, it is rarely mentioned that Palestinians who voluntarily relinquish territory are punishable by death. The west nevertheless buys the logic of the Arab states due to its economic ties, though from a dispassionate perspective, you will have to admit there settlements are a fait accompli.

 

[timtofly]

I guess you didn't notice this thread has always been about Israel. That it was intended as a rationalization and defense of their own form of apartheid.

I am still in favor of giving them one of the Southern states, since so many evangelical Christians now support Israel no matter what it does due to the apocalypse, which is apparently supposed to occur any day now.

There has to be peace first. If we remove all the Jews, I doubt that will stabilize or bring peace to the region. Egypt being a fine example of cruel peace. Syria being a fine example of a peaceful civil war. Neither having much to do with a Palestinian conflict at all.

Saying that Egypt and Syria have nothing to do with it, does not follow the apocalyptic scenario either, because the nations around Israel are supposed to be involved in the attempted destruction of said state.

If humans today are trying to self fulfill the prophecies, they are not doing a very good job of it.

 

[Masada]

This is entirely incoherent. Isn't 'We must expel the Arabs and take their place' the exact quote?

I'm going to put what I said in the simplest possible terms: when Pappé first published his book his quote was understood to be an accurate and faithful representation of what Ben-Gurion said. Morris seems to have been the first person to use the quote Pappe used and the first person to realize that the quote might not have been accurate. But Morris' decisive change in his position only came in 2012 with other scholars following, more or less, in lock-step. 2012... post-dates the publication of Pappé's book by more than a decade. So does this make the quote fake as you claimed? No, it does not.

Masada, are you cognitively dead? Can you not read the things you respond to? Lies are meant to be believed, so it's hard to believe this is deliberate.

You don't seem to get that there's multiple possible interpretations of the quote, as I noted. Yours is one, and while it might be the more probable interpretation, but it isn't the sole interpretation. For that reason, I noted that the quote wasn't "fake" but rather might be "forced".

No, like I said, we're discussing the quotes in the context that haroon used them. Most lies have a kernel of truth to them, and if a quote is taken totally out of context I think it's reasonable to label it 'fake.'

Here's what you said:

Couldn't find anything about the second after a quick search, but I won't lose sleep over it

It made no mention of context. Here's what I responded with:

The article reports that Yitzhak Rabin was barred from including in his memoirs a first hand account of the expulsion of Palestinian civilians from Lydda and Ramle in 1948 by a Council of Isreali Ministers.

To now claim that "we're discussing the quotes in the context that haroon used them" is inaccurate. I set myself a task of determining whether or not the quotes were accurate. I found that two were in full, and one was in part. That's it.

*

This is about where Masada's statements start to become truly bizarre. He sounds like he's making a UN address, not debating a forum user.

I was protecting myself from not very well veiled charges of antisemitism.

Before we proceed, I need to explain something: everything that Masada has written above is of no relation to reality. It doesn't even bear a superficial resemblance. It could be an incredibly ill-conceived lie or a view into a schizophrenic mind. I did not call Masada an anti-Semite. I didn't imply it. Smearing Israel or Israelis is not something only anti-Semites partake in. But I didn't even say he was out to smear Israel or its people. I was considering Masada's intentions, and I made the statement only to immediately eliminate the possibility.

Intimating that I might be out to smear Israel (the Jewish state) or Israelis (citizens of the Jewish state)... is tantamount to a charge of antisemitism. It's not that damned hard to parse.

 

[Domen]

Masada,

First give back your land to Aborigines, and only then criticize Israel for not giving back their land to Palestinians.

Americans are also eager to criticize Israel, but for some reason Native Americans need to sue for every piece of land in courts.

Why don't Palestinians go to courts, if they have territorial claims? Instead, they prefer to throw grenades or stones.

 

[MilesGregarius]

Why don't Palestinians go to courts, if they have territorial claims? Instead, they prefer to throw grenades or stones.

Court Rejects Palestinians in Their Bid for a Tribunal.

The International Criminal Court’s chief prosecutor on Tuesday turned down a longstanding request by the Palestinian Authority to investigate accusations of Israeli war crimes during the three-week war against Hamas in Gaza that began in late 2008.

Palestinians wait for accountability nine years after ICJ opinion against the Wall.

“One year after the historic Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) which found Israel’s Wall built on occupied Palestinian territory to be illegal; Israel continues its construction of the colonial Wall with total disregard to the Court’s decision.” Nine years later, of course, the Wall continues to stand and Israel continues to evade official accountability.

Not to mention the repeated US use of its Security Council veto to nix anything critical of Israeli actions in the Occupied Territories.

Exactly when has Israel acquiesced to legal or political demands to address Palestinian concerns?

 

[Tee Kay]

First give back your land to Aborigines, and only then criticize Israel for not giving back their land to Palestinians.

Our indigenous peoples have full citizenship, access to government services, freedom of movement, and don't generally get their houses bulldozed without permission to build mansions for Anglos.

Palestinians under occupation have none of these things.