Israel's Choice is Settlements or Peace, say Palestinians

[IndianaGreen]

Published on Monday, August 23, 2010 by Agence France-Presse

Israel's Choice is Settlements or Peace, say Palestinians

RAMALLAH, Palestinian Territories - Israel must chose between "settlements or peace," Palestinian chief negotiator Saeb Erakat said on Monday ahead of the September 2 restart of negotiations in Washington.

"The choice of the Israeli government is settlement or peace, they cannot have both," he said at a news conference in Ramallah, the political capital of the Israeli-occupied West Bank.

But he also said he believed agreement could be reached within one year.

"We think it is doable."

Palestinian president Mahmud Abbas, in a letter to EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton dated August 21 and seen by AFP on Monday, also warned that the talks would be cut short if Israel resumes settlement activities.

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2010/08/23-7

[aquart]

1. Oh, the Israelis will never be able to give up enough.

Not to satisfy the Palestinian sense of entitlement. So peace?

[Ken Burch]

5. Aquart, even you would have to agree

that, at this stage, and considering that no positive effects have come as a result of the settlement project, and given that no moral human being can actually consider it reasonable for the Palestinians to accept the permanence of the settlements, that anyone who defends the settlements is, by definition, against peace.

Just admit that the settlement supporters want the war to go on forever, and want an Arabrein Palestine. You know that's the truth. Admit it already.

[howaboutme]

9. Another POV

is that the Israelis will never ever get enough aid and money from the USA, and enough land from the Palestinians to make them content. They are convinced that we in the USA are there only for them, and the Palestinians are there only to be sacrificed.

I will make a prediction that twenty years from now in hindsight that most Israelis will have a far different viewpoint, and far less arrogant, as will many of us in the USA. Zionism will become as notorious as the other "isms"

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Ken Burch]

4. The term "Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state" is meaningless and reactionary

Israel doesn't have to be a cultural/ethnic supremacist state just to be a safe place to live for its Jewish population.

What should be the goal is for everyone to recognize Israel as a democratic, egalitarian state.

It's clear that no Palestinian state short of all the West Bank and Gaza can be viable, and keeping such a state from being viable is the Israeli right's objective.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[azurnoir]

3. IMO Israel already has the peace it wants but is hungry for a bigger piece n/t

[UndertheOcean]

6. And in the same manner the Israelis can say : Palestine's choice is Right of Return or peace .

Absolutes are ridiculous

[Tripmann]

7. Not really. Allowing right of return is a reasonable expectation

Allowing building of settlements on land you occupy is not.

[Jim Sagle]

10. "right of return" is BS. It's never happened before and it ain't happenin' now.

[proteus_lives]

11. "Allowing right of return is a reasonable expectation"

A reasonable expection for eternal conflict.

[Tripmann]

13. Denial of justice for the palestinian people will bring eternal conflict.

Pity you're too blinkered to sxee that.

[Jim Sagle]

14. So the only "justice for the palestinian people" is an unjust and unprecedented destructrion of

the world's only Jewish state?

I guess we know where you stand.

[Tripmann]

15. So you don't support equality and justice for the palestinians. Guess we know where YOU stand.

[Jim Sagle]

16. Your notion of justice is Orwellian. Therefore you're not capable of assessing where anyone stands.

[shira]

Come on Jim. Destroying Israel will bring peace. Get with the program.

That's all the PLO and Hamas have ever wanted, to just live in peace with the Israelis, as equals in a real democracy that puts civil and human rights first.

Gosh.

[Jim Sagle]

18. Ahh yess...the peace of the common grave.

[shira]

19. Nah....

The PLO and Hamas have been preparing for this peace all along as is demonstrated by their cooperation with each other and their wonderful treatment of Palestinians.

It's a sure thing that this will continue when full Right-of-Return is granted and the Palestinians rule by majority. They'll continue to peacefully cooperate with each other and be sure to treat the Jewish minority properly.

The Human Rights community will guarantee that and everyone will be happyl.

:)

[Ken Burch]

44. It's not sustainable to keep Palestinians forever living at the mercy of the IDF

And it's wrong to keep trying to make them choose stateless at home or permanent exile.

There was never, at any time, any justification for the Israeli government to try to prevent the creation, at the bare minimum, of a Palestinian state comprising the West Bank and Gaza . The Israelis KNEW that Palestinians could never be expected to settle for anything short of that, and especially not Menachem Begin's deliberately insulting "autonomy" proposals.

There is nothing so inherently evil about Palestinian Arabs that they, alone among the earth's peoples, must never be allowed self-determination.
They are not monsters, they are not soulless killing machines. They are simply an oppressed people and such people can't be expected to be helpless and unarmed as a gesture of good faith.

[proteus_lives]

20. And I think the AIB wonder why we don't understand that.

Gosh indeed, maybe we are misguided.

[azurnoir]

21. what is the AIB ? n/t

[shira]

17. self-delete. n/t

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jim Sagle]

23. Again, self-defense is not apartheid. I thought you understood that.

[shira]

24. What self-defense? Israelis aren't allowed to use that excuse. n/t

[Jim Sagle]

25. Silly me, I forgot my place.

;)

[Tripmann]

26. Yes yes. Lets all defend the regional superpower with the state of the art weaponry against the

occupied, disenfranchised, dispossessed people of palestine.

[Jim Sagle]

27. Mostly they're not occupied. And they're disenfranchised by Hamas.

And mostly they left Israel voluntarily to give invading Arab armies a clean shot at killing the Jews.

In EVERY SINGLE war that led to large refugee populations, those refugees settled somewhere else. EVERY SINGLE TIME except THIS one. Why is that?

[Tripmann]

28. So previous injustices of war can be used to excuse these ones? Don't think so.

[Jim Sagle]

29. In other contexts it's called "selective enforcement." Check into it.

[Tripmann]

30. Right and wrong does not have a context. Check into it.

Your conscience might be a good place to start the search.

[Jim Sagle]

31. My conscience is quite clear. But you might check your own.

[Tripmann]

32. LOL! Another 'i know you are but what am i' post. FFS jim, can you not hold an adult discussion??

[Jim Sagle]

34. With actual adults, I can. With you, not so much.

[Tripmann]

36. How exactly does screaming 'israel rawxx' every time innocent people are killed fit in with adult

liberal conversation?

[Jim Sagle]

39. Compare and contrast my interactions with you and my interactions with Ken.

The difference is you, not me.

[Tripmann]

46. But you don't direct your 'israel rawxx' at me or ken.You direct them at DU when innocent people die

[Jim Sagle]

48. No, I do that when blanket accusations are made and double standards erupt as they so often do.

[Tripmann]

50. So, innocent people die and you claim the perpetrators 'rawxx'.......

......but only to combat accusations and double standards??

:rofl:

i.e. killers of innocents 'rawx' if you feel they're being treated unfairly

Good man jim :applause:

[Jim Sagle]

53. Readers, you make the call as to who the adult is here.

[Tripmann]

57. We did that a long time ago my two-word post, bumpersticker-soundbite flinging friend.

[Jim Sagle]

61. As opposed to you with your long and elegant paragraphs?

Haw haw haw.

[Tripmann]

64. Funny how we haven't seen an 'israel rawxx' from you in relation to the peace talks

Do you reserve your cheers exclusively for their atrocities?

[Jim Sagle]

65. Since you insist: Israel RRRRRAWWWWWXXXXX!!!!!!!

Feel better now?

[Ken Burch]

33. Actually, that's not true

There are large refugee populations in camps in Africa, there are large numbers of Kurdish refugees, there are Afghan refugees still being kept in custody by the Australians. All over the world there are millions, maybe tens of millions, of people permanently displaced by wars who have not found a home.

And the right-of-return propsals made by Palestinians would actually involve only 200,000 people or so-not the entire seven million.

If you want the refugee issue taken off the table, you need to be pushing the Israeli government to not only offer REAL compensation(at present-day market value)to those driven out in 1948 and 1967(btw, the notion that Palestinians were asked to leave by other Arab countries has now been discredited, as no transcript of any radio broadcast from ANY Arab country calling for such a thing has ever emerged, and one would clearly have been found by now, since not only the Zionists but also the British and the Americans had monitoring stations that would have heard any such broadcast)but an apology for the dispossession and an admission that the Arabs of Palestine had and have JUST as deep a connection to the land as anyone else. It's called parity of esteem, and Israel has nothing to lose by offering it, and nothing to gain by continuing to both withhold it and to deny the Arab fact in Palestine.

[Shaktimaan]

35. for the record...

He did not mention the "Arab leaders advocating evacuation" story. All he said was that most of the Palestinians left of their own accord, which is actually true. It doesn't mean much in and of itself. They primarily left because there was a war going on and they didn't want to be stuck in the middle of it. That's hardly a big surprise. There were several distinct documented waves to the Nakba. It's a pretty well researched event at this point.

The main issue is not why they left, (unless they were physically thrown out or threatened of course.) It is that Israel prevented them from returning after the war was over.

My personal view is that there was, (as has happened in many other examples) an exchange of populations of roughly equal numbers. That the Jews from the Arab world are no longer refugees should not be held against Israel, the country that accepted them. Compensation for ALL refugees would be ideal, but with regards to a right of return, I don't see why there can't be such a right as designated by each nationality's home country. Meaning that Palestinian refugees should be afforded a right of return to Palestine. Just as Jews are afforded a right of return to Israel.

[Ken Burch]

37. If "the main issue isn't WHY they left" you need to convince the DU Likudniks of that

They're the ones who pretend that the dispossession of Palestinians is ok if they left for one reason RATHER than for another reason.

If you leave a war zone to keep your family from being killed, you are leaving "of your own accord"-because you are choosing to keep yourself, your spouse and your children alive. Such a decision should NEVER mean you have no right to go back home. And leaving to preserve one's physical safety was never accepted as a reason to deny any OTHER refugees the right to come home once the war was over.

Are the apologists for the Nakba arguing that Palestinians were obligated to remain in the line of fire AS A GESTURE OF GOOD FAITH?

If you're Palestinian, you can't catch a break on this question:

It's ok for someone else to keep you from coming home if you left the war zone to protect your family(as the refugees of 1948 and 1967 did).

It's ok for a later generation of that someone else to kill your family if you DIDN'T or COULDN'T leave the bomb zone when the illegal white phosporous was being dropped on it (as in Operation Cast Lead).

You're obligated to either be a permanent refugee OR to die in a bombed-out bantustan, if you've committed the crime of LWH (Living While Arab) in Palestine.

[Jim Sagle]

38. Ken, you're pressing too hard.

They're the ones who pretend that the dispossession of Palestinians is ok if they left for one reason RATHER than for another reason.

Why yes, it IS OK. The Arab nations started the war.

[Ken Burch]

40. If you leave voluntarily to get your family out of the line of fire

It's NOT the same as "they left because the 'other Arab countries' told them to". And it doesn't justify not ever letting them come back.

[Jim Sagle]

41. It's not the same as "they were ethnically cleansed" either.

And no, it doesn't justify not letting them back in - no more than happens in any other war conducted along tribal lines.

[Shaktimaan]

42. Unfortunately, it is not a perfect world.

The justification wasn't derived from the fact that they left of their own accord. The reality of the challenges Israel faced was the justification. The Nakba occurred during a civil war split down ethnic lines, and there were refugees on both sides. It had already been understood by the british and the UN, and then later proven by war, that the two groups were extremely unlikely to foster enough good will between them to form a functioning society.

It was the job of the new Israeli government to build and protect their new state for the task of acting as an international bulwark against anti-semitism. This was their primary mission and the one they had to consider above all others. After all, there were Holocaust survivors who needed a place to go. Would it have made sense for this new government to invite back the population of people that had been the original cause of the war that cost them 1% of their population? The war that left its Jewish refugees completely ethnically cleansed of the land of their previous homes. Who would sift through these Palestinians to determine which ones were going to be supportive of the Zionist cause and which would not? Would it have been sensible to invite in a potential fifth column to their very new and very shaky country?

It was critical to have a functioning government with a clear and definitive mission. They did not cleanse the Arabs who remained, but they were not granted equality under the law for several years either. Fair? No, of course not. But it was seen as a necessary injustice at the time. And while most of the Jewish refugees would be coming from all over the globe, the Palestinian refugees were not being relegated to a diaspora by Israel. They were being internally displaced, still free to live within Palestine. (That they weren't in the end is a far greater injustice that falls to the Arab states' feet.)

This wasn't a case like the US civil war, where the loser had to be welcomed back into the fold and given aid to rebuild. They were two separate nationalities at that point, with conflicting interests. Israel did let back in a small number, for the purpose of reuniting families. But to demand more would have been to expect potentially sacrificing their state for a more recent ideal.

[Ken Burch]

43. "It was the job of the new Israeli government to build and protect their new state for the

task of acting as an international bulwark against anti-semitism."

A task in which Israel never succeeded in the slightest, or even tried to succeed.

In fact, in order to justify Israel's existence, the leaders of that state NEEDED antisemitism to keep existing and keep growing. A world without antisemitism would be a world in which there could be no justification for Zionism.

Antisemitism was not reduced in Europe as a result of Israel's creation. In fact, the creation of Israel was actually, in many respects, a VICTORY for the European antisemites. The antisemites wanted the remaining Jews to LEAVE Europe. So did the Israeli government. Thus, the Zionist movement was effectively ALLIED with European antisemites.

Antisemitism was not reduced in North America. It's quite likely, in fact, that it was given a victory in those countries, since the creation of Israel gave the United States and Canada an excuse to bar most, if not nearly all, would-be Jewish immigrants from Europe.

Antisemitism was not reduced in the Arab world. In fact, since there's at least some evidence that the Mizrahi(who had never BEEN Zionist prior to 1948)were caused to leave the Arab world as a result of what happened to the Palestinians(other causes were opportunism on the part of some Arab leaders in pushing for Jewish expulsions that most Arabs had never previously wanted and also, perhaps, Mossad raids in to North Africa to demolish Mizrahi synagogues and panic the Mizrahi communities into fleeing to Israel, leaving them no choice but to become Zionist-by-default.

By almost all objective measures, all global efforts to combat antisemitism were actually set back by the creation of Israel, and the treatment of Palestinians by that state seems to have played a significant role in fomenting hostility to Jews among peoples who never felt such hostility before. It goes without saying that this hostility was unfair and continues to be, quite simply, wrong, since Diaspora Jews were not responsible for what Israel did to Palestinians, but it did help fuel it, as did the self-destructive strategy the Israeli government pursued in foreign policy after 1967, when it became an opponent of every other liberation movement on the planet and aided and abetted, for no good reason and in betrayal of its promise to be "a light unto the nations" horrific regimes such as apartheid South Africa and the police states of the Shah of Iran, Guatemala's military junta and the Somoza regime in Nicaragua.

Other than giving Diaspora Jews a flag to wave around(at least the ones who self-identified as Zionists)it's hard to see that Israel's existence did those people any real favors, and sadly it looks clearer and clearer that that state mainly did Diaspora Jews harm.

The way to fight antisemitism, the ONLY way to fight it, is not by reducing the struggle to the defense of what now appears to be a permanently right-wing nationalist movement, but to once again join that struggle to the cause of liberating the majority of the planet from war, greed, exploitation and misery. Only an egalitarian and democratic world can be free from bigotry.

To fight antisemitism, you need to fight all other injustices at the same time. An injury to one is an injury to all.

Why would anyone question this, given the situation we all find ourselves in?

[Shaktimaan]

45. Well, first of all...

by bulwark against anti-semitism I did not mean that their objective was to eliminate it globally but to provide a safety net for those being oppressed. And in this regard it was extremely successful.

Antisemitism was not reduced in Europe as a result of Israel's creation. In fact, the creation of Israel was actually, in many respects, a VICTORY for the European antisemites. The antisemites wanted the remaining Jews to LEAVE Europe. So did the Israeli government. Thus, the Zionist movement was effectively ALLIED with European antisemites.

This is a very twisted logic. European anti-semites didn't care if the Jews left or died. Changing the attitudes of, say, Post WWII Poles was quite beyond the scope of Zionism. Polish Holocaust survivors returned home to face pogroms and more death. Israel offered them a place to go. To say that they were allied is like saying that firemen and arsonists are allies because firemen need fires to put out which arsonists provide.

In fact, since there's at least some evidence that the Mizrahi(who had never BEEN Zionist prior to 1948)were caused to leave the Arab world as a result of what happened to the Palestinians

Right, the Mizrahi weren't zionists until they became refugees themselves. Big surprise.

The issue I have with this argument is the fact that the Arab world never gave a shit about the Palestinians and constantly used them for its own political ends and as a cudgel against Israel. That may have been their excuse, but it certainly wasn't the reason. Otherwise these same states might have done something to help these same Palestinians that they were all so willing to kill Jews and take their land over.

Antisemitism was not reduced in North America. It's quite likely, in fact, that it was given a victory in those countries, since the creation of Israel gave the United States and Canada an excuse to bar most, if not nearly all, would-be Jewish immigrants from Europe.

These same states had no problem barring Jews at other critical times as well. I seriously doubt they needed the excuse of Israel to do so. Besides, why do you think that Israel's creation would foster a sudden bloom of pro-semitism where none existed before? That was not what I meant by "bulwark against anti-semitism." Your argument seems to be that Israel is a failure at its mission because places that were anti-semitic did not immediately see the error of their ways following Israel's establishment. The US and Canada are certainly not very anti-semitic today, though I don't think Israel has much to do with that fact either.

aided and abetted, for no good reason and in betrayal of its promise to be "a light unto the nations" horrific regimes such as apartheid South Africa and the police states of the Shah of Iran, Guatemala's military junta and the Somoza regime in Nicaragua.

For no good reason? What about the Arab Oil Embargo? Many other states broke contact with Israel during that time period. Prior to that, Israel was actually the very first UN member state to support a measure against apartheid in south africa, recalling it's ambassador and applying a military boycott. The fact that they were forced to deal with these states for the survival of their economy was hardly a decision based on ethical similarities, or whatever it is you were thinking drove that policy.

Other than giving Diaspora Jews a flag to wave around(at least the ones who self-identified as Zionists)it's hard to see that Israel's existence did those people any real favors, and sadly it looks clearer and clearer that that state mainly did Diaspora Jews harm.

Well, considering that the only two places where Jews live nowadays are the US and Israel I would argue that it provided a very necessary role in aiding those Jews. Blaming anti-semitism on Israel is a convenient excuse that doesn't carry much real water. Anti-semitism existed far before Israel did. The key difference now was that its victims were not always just slaughtered or ethnically cleansed.

[Shaktimaan]

47. One small comment.

In fact, in order to justify Israel's existence, the leaders of that state NEEDED antisemitism to keep existing and keep growing. A world without antisemitism would be a world in which there could be no justification for Zionism.

This statement struck me as very telling about how many people view Israel. Ignoring the fact that it's an absurd belief and lacks any basis in fact, it reveals how some critics of Zionism assume Zionists think themselves.

Now if Israel rescued some hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees escaping anti-semitism during the first decade of its existence, then most people would say that it had more than met its burden of justification for existence. Yet the author here seems to think that Israel and global anti-semitism rates should be periodically reviewed, to determine whether its existence is STILL justified.

I can't think of any other country that someone would so casually (yet resolutely) imply that it even NEEDED a justification for existing, let alone the idea that it could potentially get revoked at some future point in time.

[Ken Burch]

51. I'm not calling for Israel's existence to be revoked

What I'm saying is, had antisemitism been wiped out in the late 1940's, had Hitler not done what he did(and what he did was SOLELY the work of Europeans, so only Europeans should ever have suffered for it)the rationale for the creation of Israel would not have existed.

And had there been a postwar movement to combat antisemitism and other forms of bigotry throughout Europe and the rest of the world, a strong successful movement, the rationale for Zionism would not have existed. A lot of countries said, however"well, there's this state that claims to be 'Jewish'-why SHOULD we make Jews welcome here?" Whatever the intent, at a basic level you have to recognize that the creation of Israel gave a lot ot antisemites exactly what they wanted, and saved them from having to change in any meaningful way. There did need to be a safe place for the Holocaust survivors(although the U.S. and Canada could easily have been pressed to BE that place)but the problem that still remains is that, in 1948, one group(Palestinian Arabs)was effectively punished for the crimes of ANOTHER group(the Nazis and their ancestors in the European antisemitic tradition). If nothing else, people who identify as "pro-Israel" need to acknowledge that this was fundamentally unjust to Palestinians. And that it was fundamentally unjust that they ended up being treated far worse than Germany was by the Israelis.

And even if a one-state solution were to be put in place(and this isn't the time to do that)such a state would inevitably include a lot of the protective measures that Israel offered, but without the ethnic-supremacist aspect. I've heard Belgium mentioned as a model, and there are WORSE models than that.

And as to particular states having to justify their continued existence as currently structured, I think that would be a good idea for MOST countries-including the United States. There need to be ways to adjust these structures and these polities to correct for the injustices that were caused by the original set-ups.

[Recursion]

55. Well, you're outlining one side of the big disagreement here

Are Israelis of European descent European or Middle Eastern?

Nobody bother answering. There isn't one, at least not one that's satisfactory to everyone who matters. But it's the big disagreement. Is Israel a colonial country or not? (Again, nobody please waste time giving your answer to the question and why it's obviously the only possible answer.)

[Ken Burch]

62. The question of whether "Israeli" culture is Middle Eastern or European is interesting, indeed

Again, if you read Segev's work(especially "The Seventh Million", in this regard)you find a lot of Euro-centrism among the early Zionist leadership, a mindset that not only caused that leadership to look down on the indigenous Arab culture, but the indigenous Mizrahi Jewish culture as well.

People like Ben-Gurion often spoke of how they were bringing "European civilization" to the "barbaric" Middle East. This viewpoint(which totally overlooks the fact that both Arab and Mizarhi cultures were deeply civilized and had rich intellectual and creative traditions)did damage that will take years to be undone.

And it led, for many years, to the Mizrahi, as well as the Palestinians, being treated as an inferior group within Israel. Not only did this undermine Israel's security(clearly, Israel would be in a much stronger position if it had accepted from the start that the Arabs who stayed were telling the truth when they said they accepted the state and would not try to overthrow it). If some of them are much less willing to state that now, it's due largely to the fact that the treatment they received from the Israeli state gave them no reason to remain loyal to it.

And the mistreatment of the Mizrahi helped drive them into bitter opposition to the Labor Zionist tradition(when, as mainly impoverished people, they might well have been a natural constituency for it), thus leading to the far worse Israeli political culture we see now.

[Shaktimaan]

66. I apologize for the delayed response...

but there are some points here I really wanted to address.

The thing you are overlooking here is that Zionism pre-dates Hitler and the Holocaust by several decades. And the justification for it was validated by plenty of non-European nations following WWII. Sadly, anti-semitism was (and is), a fact of life and Zionism existed to provide Jews with the ability to take responsibility for their own safety. The Holocaust didn't cause Israel. It merely provided further validation to the cause. Let's say that anti-semitism was somehow wiped out following WWII. Why would it have stopped the creation of Israel? By that point Israel already existed in everything but a seat at the UN.

A post-war movement to combat anti-semitism and all other bigotry would have been great. It would have been very welcome had all those Polish Holocaust survivors not been killed upon returning to their homes. But it wouldn't have invalidated Israel's reason for existing. And besides, by that time Palestine was 30% Jewish and the Yishuv had built itself a pretty functional state. To circumvent Zionism you would have to go back to the turn of the century at least. But you're talking crazy anyway. A strong, successful movement to combat anti-semitism and other racism? By whom? And how? It's 2010 and we can't even legalize gay marriage but you think someone could have vaporized anti-semitism in mid-century eastern europe?

Who cares if it gave anti-semites what they wanted? And if history is any guide, remaining in europe wouldn't have done much to combat anti-semitic feelings. Remember, there were pogroms going on. People were being massacred. I certainly wouldn't have stayed in the hopes that my charred corpse would inspire them to change.

The other main thing I want to impress upon you is that Israel's creation did not in any way "punish" the Arabs already living there. People look at it as though the Palestinians were a cohesive nationality back then. They weren't. Nor did they own the land, which is important. It was NEVER their land. And it wasn't a situation like the Native Americans where the land didn't belong to anyone or whatever. This was a crossroads of civilizations for a millennium already. There was never any guarantee or even a real assumption that the Palestinians would have a state for themselves. Had the Arabs living there just shared the land with the Jews then it probably would have worked out to everyone's advantage in a big way. But they didn't. They fought tooth and nail against the Jewish immigration, the building of infrastructure and the creation of Israel. One of their first acts demonstrating their displeasure was a massacre of the indigenous Jews of Hebron, giving yet even more credence to Zionism's mission.

What happened to the Palestinians was fundamentally unjust, sure. I fully agree with that. What I don't agree with is the notion that Jews had no right to emigrate to Palestine and build a homeland there... that when Jews purchased land in Palestine and began developing it that they were somehow "stealing" from the Palestinians. Had the Zionists walked in and began ethnically cleansing the whole area it would have been one thing. But they didn't. The Palestinians could have handled the situation in many different ways over the subsequent decades other than violence and outright rejection. In this regard they eventually paid not for Germany's sins but for their own.

You offer up a utopian vision of a single state that works like Belgium. The problem is that when the opportunity was there, they did not end up with Belgium. Far from it. They didn't even end up with Kashmir. They got Gaza. Such a state wouldn't offer any protections. Obviously, the moment there was strife the local Arabs massacred the Jews of Hebron. Their neighbors, who had been there forever... not the european Zionist immigrants, but THE JEWS. You see what I'm saying? It didn't matter that they looked and talked and acted just like them. Just like in Germany it didn't matter that they were fully assimilated. The whole point of Zionism is to not have to rely on the good graces and continued rationality of someone else, no matter how great they've seemed up til then.

The only reason the Palestinians got shafted while Germany didn't was because by the time the Palestinians started a war with the Jews, they were already able to defend themselves. However, judging by the actions and attitudes of every other Arab state since 1948, even if the Zionists had never emigrated to Palestine in the first place the Palestinians still would have gotten shafted in the end.

[Ken Burch]

63. Correction: the last line SHOULD have read

You're obligated to either be a permanent refugee OR to die in a bombed-out bantustan, if you've committed the crime of LWA (Living While Arab) in Palestine.

[shira]

59. Tripmann, Israeli people have human rights too and deserve protection from terror attacks

It's not all about a regional superpower that can blow up its neighbors 100x over.

[Violet_Crumble]

12. I think Israel sees it totally the opposite way...

But what do you expect from a govt of extremists that include a party who's spiritual leader advocates the genocide of the Palestinians? I know I don't expect anything rational from them...

[Recursion]

49. Basically. The settlers cannot remain; the refugees cannot return

That's the only solution, and everybody knows it.

[shira]

52. If the refugees cannot return, Arab govt's have lots of explaining to do...

...for keeping Palestinians as refugees for over 60 years (for their own good as they would explain it).

[Recursion]

54. Whatever

I'm not even going to ask what you think that means

:eyes:

[shira]

56. It's actually a very big deal. Arab govt's have held Palestinians as refugees for 60 years...

...promising them right of return into Israel proper.

Those who have remained refugees for 60 years will demand to know why they've been cooped up for so long. For what reason have they been denied equal rights in their host countries for 60 years.....

[Recursion]

58. Ah, yes, the Protocols of the Elders of Medina

I remember reading that

[shira]

60. It's a major issue that can't be shrugged off. n/t