Re: Cowardly Idf Soldiers, amazing clip
^ Yes. But resolution can not be achieved when only one party has all the powers to make the calls, and it expects the other party to agree to whatever resolution is imposed on it.
Nope.
By saying tribal, you mean all tribes are incompetent, jahil, jangli, illeterate,,etc... you=hater
By saying jihadist, you mean all mujahideen are evil, terrorists, violent..etc... you=hater
By saying islamist, you blame Islam for violence, terrorism, jahalat..etc.. you=hater
and your last sentence, come on dude, at least have the guts to attack me directly instead of hiding it. don't be a coward like the jews and hindus.
ho! so what about the Christians, oh! you live in there land right
There are a thousands of other religion and gods other than Islam you understand that first,
you have learned to live in harmony with the Christians now learn to live with other religions as well,
^ Yes. But resolution can not be achieved when only one party has all the powers to make the calls, and it expects the other party to agree to whatever resolution is imposed on it.
British had all the power with it, but non-violent powerful minds and will only helped in forming India and Pakistan.
This is an Islamic issue, and it involves all Islamic world.
NO.
This is an ethnonationalist issue that involves the legitimate demands of the Palestinian people for basic human rights and independence from brutal foreign occupation. Twisting this into a pan-Islamist cause has done them no good, and will only continue to be a liability for them. The ISI basically dealt the Kashmiri independence movement a kiss of death by turning a secular nationalist movement into a dumping ground for leftover Islamists from the Afghan war - essentially eliminating all international sympathy for the independence movement.
The last thing the people of Palestine need is a Tehreek-e-Taliban-e-Falasteen blowing up girls' schools and stoning women, and destroying whatever goodwill left in the international community towards them.
Re: Cowardly Idf Soldiers, amazing clip
double
Re: Cowardly Idf Soldiers, amazing clip
khoji,
Im surprised at your ignorance.
please try talking to a 'non-muslim' to find out the crimes against humanity happening & have happened against Palestanians.
I know a few arab Christian Palestinians & have heard about some Jewish Palestinians who fought against the Israeli aggression along side muslims to express against these crimes carried out by the state of israel.
Only the natives of that land are aware what's going on there. You and I can just sit here & make assumptions out of our ignorance unaware of the gravity of the situation on that land.
It is definitely not a 'muslim' issue but an issue for the whole 'humanity'. All the 'humans' need to raise voice against it.
- It could be that you don't like fanatics among Muslims, and since most fanatics also are against Israel, and since you always oppose fanatics; therefore your support of Israel is actually your opposition to Muslim fanatics.
If this is the your reason then let me assure that I am against fanaticism more than you are. But not everything that fanatics say or do is to be opposed. For example, they also believe in کلمہ, but that does not mean that we give it up only because of them. Again, we need to realize that the Middle East problem is not an Arab problem but an Islamic one. This is similar to the situation if Makkah were at stake. Such a problem would also not be just an Arab problem.
- By calling it an Arab problem you are, intentionally or otherwise, playing in the hands of Zionist propagandists. It is they who would like to present this issue as an Arab issue when in reality it is an Islamic issue.
Khan:
Not only that. There are MANY MORE differences between USSR and Israelis. Some go in favor of Israelis and some don't. You need to understand that the purpose of giving example of USSR was not to claim commonality of situation between USSR and Israel but to show that a regime may end up breaking up despite of having nuclear arsenal. That is, the purpose was to show the possibility.
Too many sweeping generalized statements. To me the above is not even worthy of a response, sorry to say.
But I would say that personally I think Arabs are not the only party to the problem. This is an Islamic issue, and it involves all Islamic world.
Khoji,
If the Palestinians got a viable state with East Jerusalem as its capital, which seems to be prefered solution, would accept the existence of Isreal.
I feel for the Palestinians, but they also let themselves be used by demogogues and monsters. They have gotten involved in civil wars in Lebanon and Jordan, and were Saddam's willing executioners in Iraq and Kuwait, which has left them friendless in the region. So when Isreal massacred them in Gaza, most of the region did not lift a finger.
So what we need in the Middle East is a solution, and not further fighting.
This is exactly where you are wrong. The Jews did not “fully acculturated”. They have always preserved a separate identity as a separate people. It’s especially true for the Ashkenazim who lived for centuries in closed communities with very limited contact with the local gentile population.
The history of the Jews in Europe is 1000 years of refugee camps. It’s been only about 100-150 years since the European Jews broke out of ghettos and started integrating with the general population. And as we all know it did not go too well.
This what makes the difference between assimilation and loss of national identity vs. preserving it.
Regarding the origins of the Palestinian Arabs, it is really hard to determine at this point. The Arabs is a very mixed bunch, genetically speaking. They freely moved and intermixed with other Arabs/Muslims throughout the Middle East. So the genetic background of the Arabs who happened to populate Palestine when they started drawing borders through the area (mid. 20th century) is highly ambiguous. Not that it matters, anyway.
I’m not sure if you know it, but the Reconquista resulted not only in the expulsion of the Moors, but also of the Jews. The Jewish presence in Spain was even longer than Moorish. Yet, the Jews do not claim a homeland in Spain, or any other place where the Jews used to live. And they used to live in maaaaany places, but these places were not the Homeland. They were places of exile where the Jews managed to settle between one expulsion to another. There is only one place on earth, a very small one, which is the true homeland of the Jewish people - the Land of Israel.
The history is full of instances when people migrated, borders shifted, nations were created and destroyed. Yet, the Jewish situation is rather unique. The Jews lost their state and their homeland in its entirety. Not some part of land were they used live, while still having vast territories to call their own. They never had their own state again anywhere on the planet, no country were they would constitute a majority, no other capital since Jerusalem. And yet, they have preserved their national identity and their connection to the homeland as a part of their identity for all that time in exile.
It’s also worth mentioning that re-establishing the Jewish state did not require carving a part from any sovereign state. The Land of Israel was not a part of any sovereign Arab or Palestinian state then.
First the area was not heavily populated then and the number of the Jews in Diaspora exceeded by far the Arab population of Palestine. Back then, the Jews presented a demographic threat to the Arabs (not the other way around as it is now). That is why the Arabs vehemently, and frequently violently, resisted Jewish migration into Palestine, which led to severe restrictions on Jewish immigration to Palestine imposed by the Brits. The restrictions were in force during 1934-1948 - that it throughout the WWII and the Holocaust.
In addition, the Jews were ready to pay generously to the Arabs who were ready to sell their property and move to an Arab state. This is exactly were the Jewish National Fund, which you’ve mentioned, came into play. It’s purpose was to raise money and buy land and property in Palestine and to pay compensations to the Arabs who were willing to relocate.
This is exactly where you are wrong. The Jews did not "fully acculturated". They have always preserved a separate identity as a separate people. It's especially true for the Ashkenazim who lived for centuries in closed communities with very limited contact with the local gentile population.
Perhaps you're not familiar with the definition of the term, but there is a difference between acculturation, and "complete assimilation" (which is what you seem to be referring to above). When I say that Jews acculturated themselves to Europe and the Middle East, I'm referring to the fact that they adopted local languages, local dress, elements of local customs & culture, and by the 19th century, were even intermarrying with local Gentiles (before you start, there's a reason why Sephardim and Ashkenazim don't look alike, and that reason is intermarriage). I agree, they maintained distinict cultural and religious traditions of their own as well, but that does not change the fact that they had acculturated themselves into a greater European or Middle Eastern context.
The history of the Jews in Europe is 1000 years of refugee camps.
To compare the Jewish Quarters of Renaissance Europe, which were formal settlements that housed the (in many cases rather affluent) Jewish citizens of a particular city, to the tent cities and shantytowns teeming with stateless refugees is nothing short of gratuitous intellectual dishonesty. It only serves to call your credibility into question.
Regarding the origins of the Palestinian Arabs, it is really hard to determine at this point. The Arabs is a very mixed bunch, genetically speaking. They freely moved and intermixed with other Arabs/Muslims throughout the Middle East. So the genetic background of the Arabs who happened to populate Palestine when they started drawing borders through the area (mid. 20th century) is highly ambiguous. Not that it matters, anyway.
I see. So the origins of the Palestinians are suspect because of migration and intermarriage, however, mirgation and intermarriage do not negate the claims of the Jewish people to the land. Which is why, according to Israeli law, a Russian atheist who happens to have had a Jewish grandfather (but isn't even an ethnic Jew according to Halakha), is entitled to settle in Israel, but a Palestinian born in Haifa and expelled by the Haganah and the IDF in '48 has no right to return.
Again, the intellectual dishonesty is mind boggling.
I'm not sure if you know it, but the Reconquista resulted not only in the expulsion of the Moors, but also of the Jews. The Jewish presence in Spain was even longer than Moorish.
I'm fully aware of that. I'm also fully aware that its irrelevant to the topic being discussed.
There is only one place on earth, a very small one, which is the true homeland of the Jewish people - the Land of Israel, etc, etc...
The problem with that concept is that its purely based on religious doctrine that is accepted as fact by less than 0.25% of the world's population, and nothing more. You yourself pointed out that the history of humanity is full of migration and shifting borders. No other people claim proprietary rights to a land the ancestors of their ancestors left over 1000 years ago, regardless of their current situation, because they realize that such an act would be fundamentally ridiculous.
It's also worth mentioning that re-establishing the Jewish state did not require carving a part from any sovereign state. The Land of Israel was not a part of any sovereign Arab or Palestinian state then.
The fact that it was a British colony at the time does not change the fact that it was already settled by people who had to be systematically disenfranchized and ethnically cleansed to make way for the Israeli state.
First the area was not heavily populated then and the number of the Jews in Diaspora exceeded by far the Arab population of Palestine. Back then, the Jews presented a demographic threat to the Arabs (not the other way around as it is now). That is why the Arabs vehemently, and frequently violently, resisted Jewish migration into Palestine, which led to severe restrictions on Jewish immigration to Palestine imposed by the Brits. The restrictions were in force during 1934-1948 - that it throughout the WWII and the Holocaust. In addition, the Jews were ready to pay generously to the Arabs who were ready to sell their property and move to an Arab state. This is exactly were the Jewish National Fund, which you've mentioned, came into play. It's purpose was to raise money and buy land and property in Palestine and to pay compensations to the Arabs who were willing to relocate.
Yes, and with all the illegal and legal Jewish migration that took place during the colonial era, the Jewish population of the British Mandate only increased from about 11% in 1920 to about 30% in 1945. And with all these "generous" purchases, Jews had only legally acquired less than 7% of the total land by 1948. What couldn't be accomplished through immigration and legal land transfer, was done initially through blatant acts of terrorism carried out by the Irgun and the Haganah, and later through systematic ethnic cleansing and forced expulsions.
Coming from an ethnic group that has suffered so much hardship through its history, the Israeli Zionists certainly had few qualms about subjecting others to blatant ethnic cleansing. Such is the irony of history, I suppose.
Khoji,
If the Palestinians got a viable state with East Jerusalem as its capital, which seems to be prefered solution, would accept the existence of Isreal.
I feel for the Palestinians, but they also let themselves be used by demogogues and monsters. They have gotten involved in civil wars in Lebanon and Jordan, and were Saddam's willing executioners in Iraq and Kuwait, which has left them friendless in the region. So when Isreal massacred them in Gaza, most of the region did not lift a finger.
So what we need in the Middle East is a solution, and not further fighting.
This is not just a Palestinian problem. This is not just an Arab problem. This is an Islamic issue.
East Jerusalem as Palestinian capital may be a preferred solution for others, but not for Zionists. They want complete occupation of East Jerusalem by evacuating its original inhabitants and settling Zionists there. Off course, it includes full control of Quds. And in case anyone doesn't know it, Zionists think that Quds was built right on top of the Hekal.
Remember what happened to Babri Masjid?
While we are discussing Zionists, I noticed an interesting song while surfing youtube.
An old song of Mehdi Hassan. Interesting part is between time 1:40 and 1:50. Notice the symbol
I don’t know the story, but I guess it would be interesting. Looks like Palestinians and Zionists.
The poem is by Habib Jalib:
tu k na-waqif e aadaab e ghulami he abhi
raqs zanjeer pehen kar bhi kiya jata he
aaj qatil ki ye marzi he k sarkash larrki
sar e maqtal tujhe korron se nachaaya jaaye
maut ka raqs zamanay ko dikhaya jaaye
iss tarah zulm ko nazrana diya jata he
raqs zanjeer pehen kar bhi kiya jata he
dekh faryad na kar, sar na jhuka, paaon utha
kal ko jo log karein ge tu abhi se kar ja
nachte nachte azadi ki khatir mar ja
manzil e ishq mein mar mar ke jiya jata he
raqs zanjeer pehen kar bhi kiya jata he
Arguments about the historical legitimacy of the creation of Israel aside, I think the continued existance of an Israeli state is a reality that the Palestinian people, and the Arab/Muslim world as whole, simply need to get used to. That said, how would the creation of a viable, independent, territorially contiguous Palestine, as part of a two state solution, "abolish [Israel's] independence?"
It would not.
Frankly, its probably in Israel's best interests too. I think Tzipi Livni said it best when she pointed out (and I'm paraphrasing) that there are essentially three goals for Israel - (1) to be a Jewish state, (2) to be a democracy, (3) and to occupy all of the land between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea - however, Israel can only accomplish any 2 of these goals together. (1) & (2) would require getting rid of Arab-majority areas like the West Bank and Gaza, as demographic realities would otherwise make Israel a Muslim-majority country within a few decades. (1) & (3) would require an apartheid state, for the same demographic reasons. (2) & (3) would again cease to be a "Jewish state."
No argument here.
A viable, independent, territorially contiguous Palestinian state next to a viable, independent, territorially contiguous Jewish state seems to be the most reasonable solution. All it takes is to convince the Arabs to accept the "Jewish state" part of the deal and we are good to go!! The occupation will be over!
Perhaps the most laughable thing you've said so far. Israel is a self-defined "Jewish state."
The concept of "the Jewish state" does not negate full and equal civil rights and political freedoms to the minorities.
Lip service to equal rights aside, its laws have been drafted to ensure preferential treatment for Jews...whether its in terms of immigration (why do only Jews have the "right of return"?),
The laws of immigration and naturalization clearly do not apply to the citizens, by definition.
or the right to recover lost properties (Jews can reclaim propeties lost in '48, internally displaced Israeli Arabs cannot), or land rights (the government has sold 15% of the nation's land to the Jewish National Fund, which openly prohibits the leasing of land to Israeli Gentiles)...I could go on. Or we can talk about the government's neglect of Arab communities....why is it that public schools in Jewish areas receive nearly 6 times more government funding per pupil than their counterparts in Arab areas?
I would not claim that everything is pretty and peachy in the Arab/Jewish relationship within Israel. The Israeli-Arab conflict, which is primarily territorial, is far from being settled and the Israeli citizens, Jews and Arabs, are unavoidably a part of it. Consequently, most of the problems revolve around land disputes. Hopefully, when the conflict finally settles, this problems will go away.
At the same time, it should be mentioned that the Israeli anti-discrimination laws have been used many times to prevent the state from abusing its power through successful litigation. Moreover, there are certain regulations in place that protect the Arab interests over the Jewish ones. For example, an Arab can settle in any town in Israel. Preventing him from doing so based on his ethnic/religious background is illegal. At the same time a Jew cannot settle in an Arab town if the local community is against it. This effectively creates areas within the Jewish state, which are off limits for Jewish settlement.
So the situation is quite complicated. Yet I still stand by my original statement that in terms of civil rights and political freedoms the Israeli Palestinians are much better off than their counterparts in the Arab countries.
A viable, independent, territorially contiguous Palestinian state next to a viable, independent, territorially contiguous Jewish state seems to be the most reasonable solution. All it takes is to convince the Arabs to accept the "Jewish state" part of the deal and we are good to go!! The occupation will be over!
Ah yes...completely shifting the onus onto the Palestinians, and refusing to accept any responsibility! What a ridiculously facile analysis of the situation.
When has such a solution been offered? So far, Israel has disingeuously claimed to offer a "Palestinian state" while only putting forward a network of small, semi-autonomous, Bantustans, fractionated by Israeli territory (which, one can safely assume on past track records, will be full of road blocks and security checkpoints to ensure that Palestinians can't move freely even within their supposed "state"). Several Palestinian leaders (including elements within the Hamas leadership) have indicated that they will accept the existance of an Israeli state, provided they are offered an independent state following the '67 borders. If you had any interest in impartiality (and its becoming increasingly clear that you don't), you might have bothered pointing out that there is also resistance on Israel's part to ceeding sufficient land to create a territorially contiguous Palestinian state. But it's far easier to just blame everything on "the Arabs" isn't it?
The concept of "the Jewish state" does not negate full and equal civil rights and political freedoms to the minorities.
Official recognition of a particular religious/ethnic group over others paves the way for entrenched discriminatory policies. Jewish states are no exception.
The laws of immigration and naturalization clearly do not apply to the citizens, by definition.
When they have been used to denaturalize hundreds of thousands of people who were forcibly expelled from their homes in contravention of international law, they pretty clearly do. Moreover, claiming that are not an indication of the preferred status accorded to Jews in Israel is nothing short of complete intellectual dishonesty.
At the same time, it should be mentioned that the Israeli anti-discrimination laws have been used many times to prevent the state from abusing its power through successful litigation. Moreover, there are certain regulations in place that protect the Arab interests over the Jewish ones. For example, an Arab can settle in any town in Israel. Preventing him from doing so based on his ethnic/religious background is illegal.
As I already pointed out, the fact remains that the JNF, which functions as a de facto government organization and has been given/sold 15% of the total land by the national government, openly declares that it does not lease any of its land to Israeli Gentiles. This is open, unambiguous, unabashed discrimination - the fact that you fail to see it as such is testament to the level at which such discrimination has been entrenched in the national psyche.
At the same time a Jew cannot settle in an Arab town if the local community is against it. This effectively creates areas within the Jewish state, which are off limits for Jewish settlement.
Or, rather, it creates formal settlements where most of the non-Jewish population is obliged to live. Yes, in a throw back to 16th century Europe, the Israeli government has more or less created Palestininan ghettos. Again, its ironic to see people with such an immense history of persecution, when given the opporutinity, so willingly taking up the role of the oppressor.
Yet I still stand by my original statement that in terms of civil rights and political freedoms the Israeli Palestinians are much better off than their counterparts in the Arab countries.
Baseless conjecture aside, your original statement was actually that "...all Israeli citizens, including the Arabs, enjoy the same civil and democratic rights with all the benefits of citizenship." Which I have pretty effectively demonstrated to be patently false.
Local dress and customs are rather superficial attributes. And obviously any population is in a constant process of development. An Englishman of today looks very differently from an Englishman of 1000 years ago in terms of dress, language and customs - and it happened without any exile. So, there is always a process of cultural development going on, and for the Jews this process was obviously influenced by the surrounding. But the changes in these superficial attributes did not change the core essence of their identity as the People of Israel.
Regarding intermarriage, it was virtually non-existent among Ashkenazim until the period of emancipation (19-20 century). The Mizrachim conditions were more relaxed, but one should remember that if a family remains Jewish, it means that a Gentile has been “accepted into a tribe”. If you are familiar with the book of Ruth, it is a very ancient custom among the Jews – “Your people is my people, your God is my God”. The Jewish identity is not about genetic purity.
http://www.atlastours.net/holyland/nablus_at_night.jpg
http://www.palsolidarity.org/main/wp-content/nablus-duwaar-sm.JPG
http://blog.globalpact.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/downtown-in-old-nablus.jpg
http://sinokrot.net/website/images/stories/industry/sinokrot-nablus.jpg
These are images of Nablus in the occupied West Bank. Does not seem like a tent city to me. If you go through the West Bank, for instance in the outskirts of Ramallah you can find Palestinian houses, which most of the Israelis can only dream of.
So, there were some Jewish ghettos in Europe, which looked quite respectable and some of their residents (not citizens!) were rather affluent. Most of them though were overcrowded slums reminiscent of leper colonies.
One should also remember that even an affluent ghetto is still a ghetto. Just ask the residents of Nablus, Ramallah or Jenin.
Again, it is not about genetic purity or place of residence. It is about a national identity preserved and passed from generation to generation.
I’m talking about historical realities of the Jewish people, not any religious doctrine.
You are confusing the proprietary rights of an individual with collective national rights of a people. These are completely different categories.
As we have already established, the history is full of migrations and shifting borders. Areas, which were once dominated by one group of people become dominated by another group and so on. It happened many times, including in the area in question. I thought it was an acceptable historical process, or was it?
And by mid. 50s the Jewish population of Israel was already higher than the Arab population that lived there in 1948. So the Jews would become a majority by that time even without the war. One can argue that the Arabs did a favor for the Jews, when they started the war of expulsion and subsequently lost it. It made things easier for the Jews, but it was not necessary.
Regarding land acquisition, let’s not forget that the majority of the land that would become Israel was either uninhabited, undeveloped, or simply without formally registered legal ownership. It is rather disingenuous to assume that the land is Arab “by default” unless the Jews can present a legal proof of ownership.
...But the changes in these superficial attributes did not change the core essence of their identity as the People of Israel.
Ah yes, so this completely intangible, semi-religious identity as "People of Israel" confers legal proprietary rights, and the right to dispossess and disenfranchise other peoples, who simply happen to have been living on the land for time immemorial.
And you wonder why people consider Zionism an inherently racist concept?
These are images of Nablus in the occupied West Bank. Does not seem like a tent city to me. If you go through the West Bank, for instance in the outskirts of Ramallah you can find Palestinian houses, which most of the Israelis can only dream of.
Thank you for cherry-picking the best images you could find. I can also go through google images and find plenty of terrible images of the crushing poverty in most of these refugee camps
Again, it is not about genetic purity or place of residence. It is about a national identity preserved and passed from generation to generation.
Then why were you trying to make your argument by calling into question the genetic purity and historic migration patterns of the Palestinian people? And who, pray tell, gave you the right to negate the "national identity" of the Palestinian people, or to claim that your "national identity" takes precedence over theirs and entitles you to completely disenfranchise them as a people? Your arguments reek of an inherent superiority complex over the Palestinians.
I'm talking about historical realities of the Jewish people, not any religious doctrine.
Historical reality is that Jews have a history of migration and thriving settlements throughout the old world, including at one point over a millennium ago, Palestine. The concept of Israel in particular as "one true homeland" where the proprietary rights of the Jewish people supersede those of all others, is based on religious doctrine and nothing more.
You are confusing the proprietary rights of an individual with collective national rights of a people. These are completely different categories.
I wasn't speaking of individuals. No other ethnic group with such a distant history of exile has claimed similar "national rights" to the homeland of the ancestors of their ancestors. Like I said, why don't the Moors have a right to carve out a homeland in Andalucia?
As we have already established, the history is full of migrations and shifting borders. Areas, which were once dominated by one group of people become dominated by another group and so on. It happened many times, including in the area in question. I thought it was an acceptable historical process, or was it?
You're being rather duplicitous. It was a travesty when it was done to the Jews 1000+ years ago, but it was an "acceptable historical practice" when it was done to the Palestinians in '48. Forget simple ethnic cleansing...such twisted logic could be used to rationalize acts of genocide.
Apparently, unlike you, I don't believe that distant historic wrongs can be corrected through modern day war crimes.
And by mid. 50s the Jewish population of Israel was already higher than the Arab population that lived there in 1948. So the Jews would become a majority by that time even without the war.
And considering the fact that the campaign of Zionist terrorism and the forced expulsion of Palestinians predates the '48 war, we have no reason to believe that Israel wouldn't have continued to ethnically cleanse the area of Arabs, with or without the cover of war.
Regarding land acquisition, let's not forget that the majority of the land that would become Israel was either uninhabited, undeveloped, or simply without formally registered legal ownership. It is rather disingenuous to assume that the land is Arab "by default" unless the Jews can present a legal proof of ownership.
The figures I quoted were based on surveys carried out by the British administration who ruled over the mandate at the time. If the British recognized the land as Palestinian owned, I think that constitutes "formal recognition." If you can't even accept the fact that the creation of Israel essentially mandated the dispossession of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians, then you're living in a state of complete denial.
Ah yes...completely shifting the onus onto the Palestinians, and refusing to accept any responsibility! What a ridiculously facile analysis of the situation.
When has such a solution been offered? So far, Israel has disingeuously claimed to offer a "Palestinian state" while only putting forward a network of small, semi-autonomous, Bantustans, fractionated by Israeli territory (which, one can safely assume on past track records, will be full of road blocks and security checkpoints to ensure that Palestinians can't move freely even within their supposed "state"). Several Palestinian leaders (including elements within the Hamas leadership) have indicated that they will accept the existance of an Israeli state, provided they are offered an independent state following the '67 borders. If you had any interest in impartiality (and its becoming increasingly clear that you don't), you might have bothered pointing out that there is also resistance on Israel's part to ceeding sufficient land to create a territorially contiguous Palestinian state. But it's far easier to just blame everything on "the Arabs" isn't it?
I'm not trying to blame everything on the Arabs. The Israelis have their share of input into continuation of the conflict as well. However, the main obstacle to the settlement of the conflict has been from the very beginning, and still is, the refusal to accept existance of the Jewish state.
The issue of the Palestinian state, its continuity and sovereignty was the easiest issue to solve. It was agreed upon already in 2001 and ever since has been a basis for negotiations. According to that offer the major settlement blocks in the WB would remain in Israel, while the Palestinan state would get territoriesfrom beyond the Green Line as compensation. The settlemnts outside of the said blocks would be removed.
The two issues which were not solved and led to breakdown of the negotiations were Jerusalem and, most importantly, the Palestinian right of return into Israel. The Arabs are ready to accept the partition for the Jews, but not for the Arabs. In other words, the Jews must revoke all claims to the lands beyond the 1967 lines and get out of there, while the Arabs would never revoke their claims to a single piece of land from the river to the sea. "What ours is ours, what yours is also ours". So, the best Arab offer so far has been the following two state solution - a Palestinian state, which must be "Judenrein" ("clean of Jews"), and a Palestinian state where Jews are allowed to live (at least until the newly formed majority "democratically" decides otherwise).
Official recognition of a particular religious/ethnic group over others paves the way for entrenched discriminatory policies. Jewish states are no exception.
Not at all.
Somehow, there is no problem with an Italian state or with a Polish state, with the Arab **republic of Egypt or with the Syrian Arab **Republic. Or with a Palestinian state. But a Jewish state is suddenly a no-no.
When they have been used to denaturalize hundreds of thousands of people who were forcibly expelled from their homes in contravention of international law, they pretty clearly do.
There were not "denaturalized" since they were never citizens of Israel.
Yes, many of them were expelled. It was a war of mutual expulsion there -- the Arabs were expelling Jews, the Jews were expelling Arabs. Again, it did not have to go this way.
Moreover, claiming that are not an indication of the preferred status accorded to Jews in Israel is nothing short of complete intellectual dishonesty.
It is an indication that Israel was created as a national home of the Jewish people where Jews exercise their right for independence and self-determination as a people. Again, let's not confuse the national rights of a collective with civil rights of each individual citizen.
As I already pointed out, the fact remains that the JNF, which functions as a de facto government organization and has been given/sold 15% of the total land by the national government, openly declares that it does not lease any of its land to Israeli Gentiles. This is open, unambiguous, unabashed discrimination - the fact that you fail to see it as such is testament to the level at which such discrimination has been entrenched in the national psyche.
That "open declaration" stems from the history of the JNF, which raised money through donations with a specifically stated purpose of facilitation Jewish settlement in the Land of Israel. People who donated the money expected that it would be used to settle Jews - hence "the declaration". However, since then times have changed; a large portion of the land acquired by the JNF since then was not paid for with the donation money. Therefore, The Israeli Attorney General and the Supreme Court have ruled that the statue is in violation of the Israeli anti-discrimination laws and cannot be implemented. Any attempt to implement it is stricken down by a court order. In addition, most of the land own by JNF was in fact not used for settlement of either Jews or Arabs, but for afforestation, park development, building water reservoirs and similar projects.
Or, rather, it creates formal settlements where most of the non-Jewish population is obliged to live. Yes, in a throw back to 16th century Europe, the Israeli government has more or less created Palestininan ghettos.
You've misunderstood. The non-Jewish population is not "obliged" to live their. They can live wherever they want. It is only the Jewish population that is restricted. This legislation was actually pushed for by the Arab organizations. Has something to do with protecting the rights of minorities to preserve their cultural distinction and individuality.
Baseless conjecture aside, your original statement was actually that "...all Israeli citizens, including the Arabs, enjoy the same civil and democratic rights with all the benefits of citizenship." Which I have pretty effectively demonstrated to be patently false.
Again, civil rights and political freedoms as individual citizens - yes; collective national rights (self-determination etc.) - no.
Ah yes, so this completely intangible, semi-religious identity as "People of Israel" confers legal proprietary rights, and the right to dispossess and disenfranchise other peoples, who simply happen to have been living on the land for time immemorial.
The national identity does not confer property rights, and obviously not the right to dispossess, etc. It does confer the right to seek self-determination and independence. The property rights are dealt with and being transferred in the same way as it happens everywhere since time immemorial -- legal agreements and monetary compensations.
Thank you for cherry-picking the best images you could find. I can also go through google images and find plenty of terrible images of the crushing poverty in most of these refugee camps
Actually, I did not cherry-picking. You can google "Nablus" yourself. You can even visit Nablus personally if you wish. But as I said, it is quite similar to the Jewish existence in Europe for the most of its history.
Then why were you trying to make your argument by calling into question the genetic purity and historic migration patterns of the Palestinian people? And who, pray tell, gave you the right to negate the "national identity" of the Palestinian people, or to claim that your "national identity" takes precedence over theirs and entitles you to completely disenfranchise them as a people? Your arguments reek of an inherent superiority complex over the Palestinians.
Also the history of the Palestinian national identity and Jewish national identity is quite different, by no means I negate the national identity of the Palestinian people. On the contrary, I fully support the idea of an independent Palestinian state. I will tell you more. Anyone who supports the idea of Jewish independence in the Jewish state must support the idea of Palestinian independence in the Palestinian state, and vice versa. Any other position is nothing but miserable hypocrisy.
Historical reality is that Jews have a history of migration and thriving settlements throughout the old world, including at one point over a millennium ago, Palestine.
Not exactly. The Jews have originated as a people and as a nation and had their own state in that land, which Romans later called Palestine. After that, they were dispersed and migrated, but never again they had their own state anywhere on the planet, no country were they would constitute a majority, no other capital since Jerusalem. In every other place they were a minority, frequently a persecuted one. So, no, the Land of Israel for the Jews is not like any other place in the world.
I wasn't speaking of individuals. No other ethnic group with such a distant history of exile has claimed similar "national rights" to the homeland of the ancestors of their ancestors. Like I said, why don't the Moors have a right to carve out a homeland in Andalucia?
Yes, the Jews are quite unique. No other nation has preserved its distinct national identity for so long after a loss of independence.
Regarding Andalusia, the Spaniards have Spain, the Arabs have Morocco (not to mention other Arab states). Both sides got their national aspirations satisfied. The historical border shifts between the two nations is exactly what it is -- a history, just like many other border shifts all over the world.
There is a big difference between having your national home smaller than it used to be at some point of history and not having one at all.
The national identity does not confer property rights, and obviously not the right to dispossess, etc. It does confer the right to seek self-determination and independence. The property rights are dealt with and being transferred in the same way as it happens everywhere since time immemorial -- legal agreements and monetary compensations.
With all due respect, Alex, I think this is where there is a fundamental disconnect. Something akin to how contemporary Muslims have this irrational expectation of non-Muslims to respect their sacred figures...
a) Purchasing property for the sake of seeking a new state is outright treasonous. Whereas I understand the Ottoman empire was dissolved, and Jewish immigration to the ME picked up under the British mandate (perhaps because of European anti-Semitism?), purchasing of land with the intent to carve out a homeland began under the Ottomans. What would have happened had the Ottoman empire not fallen?
b) When we talk about self-determination and independence, we do so typically for a people who have inhabited a land and continue to do so. Whereas I understand that in the mythos (at least to us outsiders) of Israel figures large in the Jewish mindset, is it not folly to expect others to abide or respect this mythos? I mean...Israel was a thing of the past, with no real legacy beyond sacred sites.
Regardless, a and b may perhaps be moot today, but perhaps should serve as a window as to why people are/were hostile to the notion of a nation being foisted in their midst.
The property rights are dealt with and being transferred in the same way as it happens everywhere since time immemorial -- legal agreements and monetary compensations.
Forced expulsions, and systematic dispossession and disenfranchisement are not the elements of "legal agreements and monetary compensation." They are the tools of ethnic cleansing. Your refusal to admit this is pure denialism, and nothing more.
In every other place they were a minority, frequently a persecuted one. So, no, the Land of Israel for the Jews is not like any other place in the world.
Yes, the Jews are quite unique. No other nation has preserved its distinct national identity for so long after a loss of independence.
Your arrogance is truly breathtaking.
What about the Romani? Weren't they exiled from their homes in the Indian Subcontinent, forced to wander through the Middle East and Europe for centuries? Weren't they persecuted? Weren't they victims of genocide in the Holocaust? Aren't they a minority in every country in which they live? Where is their homeland? When will they be given the right to ethnically cleanse part of India so they can establish a Romani state? There are other, similar groups...Kurds, Tartars, etc. Unlike you, few have the audacity to claim that victimhood begins and ends with their respective groups, or that they are unique competitors in the Olympics of suffering.
Regarding Andalusia, the Spaniards have Spain, the Arabs have Morocco (not to mention other Arab states). Both sides got their national aspirations satisfied. The historical border shifts between the two nations is exactly what it is -- a history, just like many other border shifts all over the world.
How utterly racist and offensive.
I would have thought that someone who lives in the Middle East would have a somewhat more nuanced view of the people who inhabit that area, but apparently to you all of the Gentiles living between Marrakech and Muscat are all the same, and can be lumped together as "Arabs." There are myriad different cultures, ethnicities, and histories within that group. Moroccan Arabic isn't even mutually intelligible with Iraqi Arabic or Gulf Arabic, etc. The fact that the Moors were expelled into the Arab world doesn't mean that their national aspirations were satisfied.
I'm not trying to blame everything on the Arabs
Many of your past statements speak otherwise.
According to that offer the major settlement blocks in the WB would remain in Israel, while the Palestinan state would get territoriesfrom beyond the Green Line as compensation. The settlemnts outside of the said blocks would be removed.
You're describing the very same Bantustans I already referred to - a series of semi-autonomous, landlocked Palestinian settlements, surrounded on all sides by Israel. The Israeli government has repeatedly made it clear that even this husk of a Palestinian state wouldn't be fully independent. The offer is so insulting, its laughable. It would probably be better for the Palestinians to wait for their population to grow over 30-40 years and let demographic realities do in Israel the same thing they did in Apartheid South Africa.
The Arabs are ready to accept the partition for the Jews, but not for the Arabs. In other words, the Jews must revoke all claims to the lands beyond the 1967 lines and get out of there, while the Arabs would never revoke their claims to a single piece of land from the river to the sea.
Technically those are their rights according to international law. No government or international body officially recognizes the legtimacy of Jewish settlements beyond the '67 lines - they are there illegally, period. And there are several international treaties in place both banning the forced expulsion of noncombatants, and guaranteeing war refugees' right of return.
That said, if the Palestinians were given a fully independent state along the 1967 boarders, I don't think its realistic to expect right of return to Israeli territory. However, as I already pointed out, I don't think an Israeli offer of even such a state is forthcoming.
Somehow, there is no problem with an Italian state or with a Polish state, with the Arab **republic of Egypt or with the Syrian Arab **Republic. Or with a Palestinian state. But a Jewish state is suddenly a no-no
Italy and Poland weren't created through the systematic dispossetion of a settled population 60 years ago. This is not an analogous situation.
There were not "denaturalized" since they were never citizens of Israel.
"Israel" is a post-colonial construct. The Palestinians settled there were citizens of the Ottoman Empire, then became British subjects when sovereignty shifted after WWI. Their rights to inhabit the area as citizens when sovereignty shifted again are established by the conventions of historic precedent and international law. The act of disenfranchising and expelling them was an act of denaturalization.
It was a war of mutual expulsion there -- the Arabs were expelling Jews, the Jews were expelling Arabs.
The entire world recognizes that this was an overwhelmingly one-sided process.
It's like hearing a Nazi war criminal rationalize the massacre of thousands of civilians in the Warsaw Ghetto by pointing out that the "rebels were killing German soldiers, and the German soldiers were killing the rebels."
Therefore, The Israeli Attorney General and the Supreme Court have ruled that the statue is in violation of the Israeli anti-discrimination laws and cannot be implemented. Any attempt to implement it is stricken down by a court order.
That simply isn't true. Numerous international human rights organizations (not to mention the State Department of Israel's biggest benefactor) have pointed out that the JNF continues to enforce discriminatory policies in land rights, and that challenges to its authority have gone unenforced. Frankly, I believe them over you any day. Also, why don't internally displaced Israeli Arabs have the right to claim property lost during the wars, when Israeli Jews do?
Again, civil rights and political freedoms as individual citizens - yes; collective national rights (self-determination etc.) - no.
The right to equal access to property is an individual civil right. The right to equal funding for government schools is an individual civil right. The right to marry "foreigners" of one's choice is an individual civil right. The fact that Israeli Arabs are denied these basic rights demonstrates their secondary status in Israeli society.
Forced expulsion and dispossession of the Arab population did not start until the Arabs rejected all peaceful solutions, including the UN partition plan, and started the war with a specific purpose of expelling the Jews. The Jews were trying legal agreements and monetary compensation for a very long time, but at that point all bets were off. After the Arabs insisted on the “let the sword decide” option, the Jews could only accept the challenge. The sword has decided. Now what?
The origin of the Roma people is quite obscure. It is only known that they originated somewhere from the Indian subcontinent. Apparently, they have never had their own state and have been a nomadic people throughout their history. They still continue their isolated nomadic lifestyle and, apparently, have no desire to settle down or create an independent state. This is their choice, of course.
The Kurds have been continuously living in the area of their origin, where they have formed as a distinct ethnic group. They have never attained statehood though as their lands were constantly dominated by other peoples. Presently, however, their struggle for independence is well-known. Good for them.
The Tartars, which are apparently descending from the Mongol-Tartar tribes, are living for centuries in a relatively compact area in the central Russia, most of the time under Russian dominance. Currently, they enjoy some level of autonomy with the Republic of Tatarstan as a part of Russian Federation. All their attempts to gain true independence were suppressed by the Russians.
I don’t understand though what is the point of your examples.
Well, the notion that all the Arabs are one single Arab Nation is not really my “racist” invention. Just ask any Pan-Arabist.
BTW, I’m fully aware of diversity among the Arabs and also the language issue.
The Moroccan Arabic is indeed very different from the Levantine Arabic. It becomes plainly obvious whenever an Israeli Jew of Moroccan extraction attempts to communicate with an Israeli Arab in “Arabic” 
The Moors came from that world. Moors are not self-defined people and the term “Moor” has no ethnological value. It is a collective term applied by the Europeans to all Arab-Berber people from the Northwestern Africa.
The major part of Moorish domain was in Africa and at some point it spread into Iberia.
After they were pushed out of Iberia they remained in the Northwestern Africa and today comprise essentially all the population of Morocco, Western Sahara, large part of Mauritania, Mali and Algeria.
What Bantustans?! Not series and not semi- anything. And what landlocked?! Gaza has a very long seacoast!!
Does it include the Jewish non-combatants and refugees that were expelled from beyond 1967 lines during the 1948-1949 war?
Really? And yet somehow it is the main point of contention.