Any one wish to discuss Israel vs. Palestine here?

The point I'm trying to makes is those 650,000 Jews and 1.35 million Arabs living in Mandate Palestine in 1948 should have decided their own fate at the ballot box.

They should still settle it by ballot box. Only, a sizeable chunk of the population in Israel/Palestine can't vote in any way shape or form. It is a homeland scenario for many, compressed into areas without the freedom of movement, reminiscent of apartheid South Africa or the American south before Civil Rights.
 
The point I'm trying to makes is those 650,000 Jews and 1.35 million Arabs living in Mandate Palestine in 1948 should have decided their own fate at the ballot box.

They should still settle it by ballot box. Only, a sizeable chunk of the population in Israel/Palestine can't vote in any way shape or form. It is a homeland scenario for many, compressed into areas without the freedom of movement, reminiscent of apartheid South Africa or the American south before Civil Rights.

All Israeli citizens whether of Jewish or Arab or any other heritage have full rights of citizenship and full rights to vote. There are Arabs serving on the Israeli Knesset. There are no restrictions of any kind on Arab businesses homes, or mosques. The only restraints on total integration is that Israeli does require there to be a majority of Jews on the Knesset for to allow an Arab majority would invite the dissolution of Israel. Because the Arabs live so much better in Israel than they would likely be able to do anywhere else in the Middle East, Israeli Arabs quietly support that policy because they LIKE the affluence and freedom they enjoy in Israel that they would not enjoy anywhere else in the Middle East.

The other concession that Israel makes to the Arabs, unless that has changed in recent years, is that Arabs are not required to do mandatory military service. They can join the Israeli military but are not required to do so. The concept is that the Israelis will not force the Arabs to take up arms against their friends and relatives in neighboring countries if that should be necessary. Roughtly 20.4% of the Israeli population is Arab.

Most of the Arabs living in East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights seized by Israel in the Six Day War of 1967 were offered Israeli citizenship. But because they were unwilling to recognize Israel's sovereignty, they refused Israeli citizenship. They are allowed to remain in their homes and can vote in local civic affairs, but they are not afforded a right to vote in Israeli elections any more than non citizens are allowed to vote in ours.

Accusations of Apartheid related to Israel is absurd.
 
Last edited:
For me the bottom line is that the Romans drove the Jews out of Jerusalem during or around 70 A.D. and the Jews have endured intermittant persecution, for being Jews, in almost every place they lived for the next 2000 years.

Perhaps for some the bottom line is that the Jews drove the Canaanites out of the land once called the Land of Canaan, present day Israel.

You can start your timeline in a few places but should point out to the fact that this territory has been home to a few people who feel it is theirs to call home.

You know that the Canaanites are Descendants of Abram, right?

Absolutely, both Canaanites and Jews are from Abraham's lineage nevertheless if they are distant brothers somehow one brother deserves the same land more than the other?

To my mind both Arabs and Jews are descended from Abraham yet one is "promised" the land of Israel and the other must merely accept it.

The entire religious aspect should be tossed out of the window when it comes to non-Jews and non-Arabs making an honest review of the situation - when you review the situation you look at the entire history of the area and make an assessment about what is fair based on population settlement across the land's history, not just the last 50 years.
 
Perhaps for some the bottom line is that the Jews drove the Canaanites out of the land once called the Land of Canaan, present day Israel.

You can start your timeline in a few places but should point out to the fact that this territory has been home to a few people who feel it is theirs to call home.

You know that the Canaanites are Descendants of Abram, right?

Absolutely, both Canaanites and Jews are from Abraham's lineage nevertheless if they are distant brothers somehow one brother deserves the same land more than the other?

To my mind both Arabs and Jews are descended from Abraham yet one is "promised" the land of Israel and the other must merely accept it.

The entire religious aspect should be tossed out of the window when it comes to non-Jews and non-Arabs making an honest review of the situation - when you review the situation you look at the entire history of the area and make an assessment about what is fair based on population settlement across the land's history, not just the last 50 years.

The "promised land" is a tiny tiny part of the Middle East and barely shows up at all on a map of the Earth. It is the size of one average New Mexico county. It is slightly more than 20 sq kilometers in size. For comparison, the land area of Dallas TX is about 19 sq kilometer.

It is the only place that the Jews have had a homeland since 70 A.D.

For the life of me, I cannot understand how anybody resents the Jews having this teensy tract of land with almost no natural resources and of little or no economic interest or benefit to anybody other than the Jews.
 
You know that the Canaanites are Descendants of Abram, right?

Absolutely, both Canaanites and Jews are from Abraham's lineage nevertheless if they are distant brothers somehow one brother deserves the same land more than the other?

To my mind both Arabs and Jews are descended from Abraham yet one is "promised" the land of Israel and the other must merely accept it.

The entire religious aspect should be tossed out of the window when it comes to non-Jews and non-Arabs making an honest review of the situation - when you review the situation you look at the entire history of the area and make an assessment about what is fair based on population settlement across the land's history, not just the last 50 years.

The "promised land" is a tiny tiny part of the Middle East and barely shows up at all on a map of the Earth. It is the size of one average New Mexico county. It is slightly more than 20 sq kilometers in size. For comparison, the land area of Dallas TX is about 19 sq kilometer.

It is the only place that the Jews have had a homeland since 70 A.D.

For the life of me, I cannot understand how anybody resents the Jews having this teensy tract of land with almost no natural resources and of little or no economic interest or benefit to anybody other than the Jews.

The resent is based on Israel using its resources to push out Arabs.

This small tiny part of the Middle East however small has always been occupied by Arabs along with Jews - neither has right to push the other out, neither should have more right to the land. That is my point. If both sides can come to that agreement - of course borders being the huge issue, then the issue is resolved. Both distant brothers occupying the same land - perhaps destiny.
 
The point I'm trying to makes is those 650,000 Jews and 1.35 million Arabs living in Mandate Palestine in 1948 should have decided their own fate at the ballot box.

They should still settle it by ballot box. Only, a sizeable chunk of the population in Israel/Palestine can't vote in any way shape or form. It is a homeland scenario for many, compressed into areas without the freedom of movement, reminiscent of apartheid South Africa or the American south before Civil Rights.

All Israeli citizens whether of Jewish or Arab or any other heritage have full rights of citizenship and full rights to vote. There are Arabs serving on the Israeli Knesset. There are no restrictions of any kind on Arab businesses homes, or mosques. The only restraints on total integration is that Israeli does require there to be a majority of Jews on the Knesset for to allow an Arab majority would invite the dissolution of Israel. Because the Arabs live so much better in Israel than they would likely be able to do anywhere else in the Middle East, Israeli Arabs quietly support that policy because they LIKE the affluence and freedom they enjoy in Israel that they would not enjoy anywhere else in the Middle East.

The other concession that Israel makes to the Arabs, unless that has changed in recent years, is that Arabs are not required to do mandatory military service. They can join the Israeli military but are not required to do so. The concept is that the Israelis will not force the Arabs to take up arms against their friends and relatives in neighboring countries if that should be necessary. Roughtly 20.4% of the Israeli population is Arab.

Most of the Arabs living in East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights seized by Israel in the Six Day War of 1967 were offered Israeli citizenship. But because they were unwilling to recognize Israel's sovereignty, they refused Israeli citizenship. They are allowed to remain in their homes and can vote in local civic affairs, but they are not afforded a right to vote in Israeli elections any more than non citizens are allowed to vote in ours.

Accusations of Apartheid related to Israel is absurd.
"The overwhelming majority of non-Jewish citizens are Arabs and they are subject to various forms of discrimination.

"It is not clear that whatever discrepancies exist in the treatment of various communities in Israeli society are based on religion per se. Israeli Arabs and other non-Jewish Israelis are, in fact, free to practice their religions.

"The Government does not provide Israeli Arabs, who constitute 20 percent of the population, with the same quality of education, housing, employment opportunities, and social services as Jews. In addition, government spending and financial support are proportionally far lower in predominantly non-Jewish areas than in Jewish areas.

"According to the press, an Interior Ministry report released during 1998 notes that non-Jewish communities receive significantly less government financial support than their Jewish counterparts.

"Israeli-Arab organizations have challenged the Government's 'Master Plan for the Northern Areas of Israel,' which listed as priority goals increasing the Galilee's Jewish population and blocking the territorial contiguity of Arab villages and towns, on the grounds that it discriminates against Arab citizens.

Annual Report on International Religious Freedom for 1999: Israel

Why do you think it's called the Jewish State?
 
Absolutely, both Canaanites and Jews are from Abraham's lineage nevertheless if they are distant brothers somehow one brother deserves the same land more than the other?

To my mind both Arabs and Jews are descended from Abraham yet one is "promised" the land of Israel and the other must merely accept it.

The entire religious aspect should be tossed out of the window when it comes to non-Jews and non-Arabs making an honest review of the situation - when you review the situation you look at the entire history of the area and make an assessment about what is fair based on population settlement across the land's history, not just the last 50 years.

The "promised land" is a tiny tiny part of the Middle East and barely shows up at all on a map of the Earth. It is the size of one average New Mexico county. It is slightly more than 20 sq kilometers in size. For comparison, the land area of Dallas TX is about 19 sq kilometer.

It is the only place that the Jews have had a homeland since 70 A.D.

For the life of me, I cannot understand how anybody resents the Jews having this teensy tract of land with almost no natural resources and of little or no economic interest or benefit to anybody other than the Jews.

The resent is based on Israel using its resources to push out Arabs.

This small tiny part of the Middle East however small has always been occupied by Arabs along with Jews - neither has right to push the other out, neither should have more right to the land. That is my point. If both sides can come to that agreement - of course borders being the huge issue, then the issue is resolved. Both distant brothers occupying the same land - perhaps destiny.

Israel has pushed out no Arabs. All who have had homes in Israeli territory have been invited to stay and have been offered citizenship. The 20% of Israeli population that is Arab enjoy full rights of citizenship, unrestricted rights to conduct business and worship as they please, and occupy seats on the Knesset. Only those who intended the destruction of Israel have been displaced. The land of Israel is slightly larger than the land area occupied by Dallas TX. It is the only place on Earth that the Jews can call a homeland.

Why do you some so resent the Jews having this relatively tiny tract of land?
 
"The 1948 Palestinian exodus, known in Arabic as the Nakba (Arabic: النكبة*, an-Nakbah, lit. 'disaster', 'catastrophe', or 'cataclysm'),[1] occurred when approximately 711,000 to 725,000 Palestinian Arabs left, fled or were expelled from their homes, during the 1947–1948 Civil War in Mandatory Palestine and the 1948 Arab-Israeli War."

1948 Palestinian exodus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
The "promised land" is a tiny tiny part of the Middle East and barely shows up at all on a map of the Earth. It is the size of one average New Mexico county. It is slightly more than 20 sq kilometers in size. For comparison, the land area of Dallas TX is about 19 sq kilometer.

It is the only place that the Jews have had a homeland since 70 A.D.

For the life of me, I cannot understand how anybody resents the Jews having this teensy tract of land with almost no natural resources and of little or no economic interest or benefit to anybody other than the Jews.

The resent is based on Israel using its resources to push out Arabs.

This small tiny part of the Middle East however small has always been occupied by Arabs along with Jews - neither has right to push the other out, neither should have more right to the land. That is my point. If both sides can come to that agreement - of course borders being the huge issue, then the issue is resolved. Both distant brothers occupying the same land - perhaps destiny.

Israel has pushed out no Arabs. All who have had homes in Israeli territory have been invited to stay and have been offered citizenship. The 20% of Israeli population that is Arab enjoy full rights of citizenship, unrestricted rights to conduct business and worship as they please, and occupy seats on the Knesset. Only those who intended the destruction of Israel have been displaced. The land of Israel is slightly larger than the land area occupied by Dallas TX. It is the only place on Earth that the Jews can call a homeland.

Why do you some so resent the Jews having this relatively tiny tract of land?

No one resents an Israeli/Palestinian state, so long as all people, including those in areas under control as occupied territories, are allowed to either be free to determine their own future, or participate in the one that holds fast to them. The idea that loyalty oaths are needed othewise is incredulous, and are not even required in the United States. All people, including those in the occupied territories should be able to vote in Palestine/Israel. We used a lot of the same logic and tricks in the southern US to justify Jim Crow laws keeping blacks from voting.

There should be no "Jewish" state, but democratic one, and the United States should give no support to any nation that recognizes itself as a religious state, instead of one where all peoples are included.

A look through the occupied territories of Gaza and the West Bank very much are reminiscent of the apartheid burrows of South Africa. It is laughable that anyone can use religion, or any mention of "God" to justify what is going on in that region of the world.
 
Last edited:
What feels wrong about the Palestine/Israeli conflict goes back to 1948.

I have no personal interest in this conflict merely one as an observer with my principles of justice and fairness.

It seems due to political maneuvers the piecing out of land for a state of Israel came about and the existing Arab populations were left to suffer the consequences.

To this day the western countries advocate for Israel while Palestinians did not have the same leverage although yes larger Arab countries have sided with Palestinians it is not with the same weight as the western countries bring to bare.

To me it has always appeared as in imbalance of unfair circumstances.

I fully agree with Israel's right to exist and not be attacked by any Palestinian groups.

Nevertheless it is difficult to overlook the imbalance of circumstances which resulted in hundreds of villages since '48 and '67 which formerly were Palestinian become lost to the Israel.
 
What feels wrong about the Palestine/Israeli conflict goes back to 1948.

I have no personal interest in this conflict merely one as an observer with my principles of justice and fairness.

It seems due to political maneuvers the piecing out of land for a state of Israel came about and the existing Arab populations were left to suffer the consequences.

To this day the western countries advocate for Israel while Palestinians did not have the same leverage although yes larger Arab countries have sided with Palestinians it is not with the same weight as the western countries bring to bare.

To me it has always appeared as in imbalance of unfair circumstances.

I fully agree with Israel's right to exist and not be attacked by any Palestinian groups.

Nevertheless it is difficult to overlook the imbalance of circumstances which resulted in hundreds of villages since '48 and '67 which formerly were Palestinian become lost to the Israel.
The British call for a Jewish homeland in Palestine coincided with the Royal Navy's switch from coal to oil to fuel its fleets. This coincidence was not lost on the first British Military Governor of Jerusalem in 1922:

"Sir Ronald Storrs, the first Governor of Jerusalem, certainly had no illusions about what a 'Jewish homeland' in Palestine meant for the British Empire: 'It will form for England,' he said, 'a little loyal Jewish Ulster in a sea of potentially hostile Arabism.'”

Divide and Conquer as Imperial Rules | FPIF

At the end of WWII the US took over much of the British Empire.
After the Six Day War, Israel became the US's chief strategic asset in the Middle East.
It's been downhill ever since, imho.
 
What feels wrong about the Palestine/Israeli conflict goes back to 1948.

I have no personal interest in this conflict merely one as an observer with my principles of justice and fairness.

It seems due to political maneuvers the piecing out of land for a state of Israel came about and the existing Arab populations were left to suffer the consequences.

To this day the western countries advocate for Israel while Palestinians did not have the same leverage although yes larger Arab countries have sided with Palestinians it is not with the same weight as the western countries bring to bare.

To me it has always appeared as in imbalance of unfair circumstances.

I fully agree with Israel's right to exist and not be attacked by any Palestinian groups.

Nevertheless it is difficult to overlook the imbalance of circumstances which resulted in hundreds of villages since '48 and '67 which formerly were Palestinian become lost to the Israel.

Hundred of villages in a country so tiny it would barely cover the City of Dallas? There is no way.

The fact is that not one of the Arabs currnetly living on that land was required to give up any property of any kind when the Nation of Israel was established. All were invited to stay and co-exist peacefully with the Jews but under an Israeli government under authority of the Jews. It is ONLY those Arabs who left Israel so that approaching Arab armies could annihilate the Jews who lost anything. They were not Israeli citizens yet and they were not welcomed back. The Arabs who stayed not only retained their property but were given full Israeli citizenship and full rights of citizenship.

The bottom line is those who are willing to allow the Jews to live in peace are not mistreated by anybody. Those who wish to deny the Jews not only the land but their very lives have not fared so well. The land of Israel was established on land held by Great Britain with the full consent of Britain and with the full authority of the newly organized United Nations.

The Jews needed a homeland to get away from hateful oppressive governments and they wanted the land they believe God gave them. It is a tiny tiny piece of land. They should be allowed to have it.
 
Last edited:
Tell us again how many square kilometers Israel occupies?

Then tell us how many of the inhabitants of Deir Yassin "were invited to stay and coexist peacefully with the Jew."

:The Deir Yassin massacre took place on April 9, 1948, when around 120 fighters from the Irgun Zevai Leumi and Lohamei Herut Israel Zionist paramilitary groups attacked Deir Yassin near Jerusalem, a Palestinian-Arab village of roughly 600 people."
 
What feels wrong about the Palestine/Israeli conflict goes back to 1948.

I have no personal interest in this conflict merely one as an observer with my principles of justice and fairness.

It seems due to political maneuvers the piecing out of land for a state of Israel came about and the existing Arab populations were left to suffer the consequences.

To this day the western countries advocate for Israel while Palestinians did not have the same leverage although yes larger Arab countries have sided with Palestinians it is not with the same weight as the western countries bring to bare.

To me it has always appeared as in imbalance of unfair circumstances.

I fully agree with Israel's right to exist and not be attacked by any Palestinian groups.

Nevertheless it is difficult to overlook the imbalance of circumstances which resulted in hundreds of villages since '48 and '67 which formerly were Palestinian become lost to the Israel.

Hundred of villages in a country so tiny it would barely cover the City of Dallas? There is no way.

The fact is that not one of the Arabs currnetly living on that land was required to give up any property of any kind when the Nation of Israel was established. All were invited to stay and co-exist peacefully with the Jews but under an Israeli government under authority of the Jews. It is ONLY those Arabs who left Israel so that approaching Arab armies could annihilate the Jews who lost anything. They were not Israeli citizens yet and they were not welcomed back. The Arabs who stayed not only retained their property but were given full Israeli citizenship and full rights of citizenship.

The bottom line is those who are willing to allow the Jews to live in peace are not mistreated by anybody. Those who wish to deny the Jews not only the land but their very lives have not fared so well. The land of Israel was established on land held by Great Britain with the full consent of Britain and with the full authority of the newly organized United Nations.

The Jews needed a homeland to get away from hateful oppressive governments and they wanted the land they believe God gave them. It is a tiny tiny piece of land. They should be allowed to have it.

UN General Assembly
Resolution 181 gave Israel land, somehow Israel decided it wasn't enough land...

True at the time the Palestinians rejected it. Today however I'm sure the sentiment is entirely different for both sides.

Plan Dalet - depending on interpretation was a plan of conquest and expulsion if necessary.
Again subject to interpretation.
 
What feels wrong about the Palestine/Israeli conflict goes back to 1948.

I have no personal interest in this conflict merely one as an observer with my principles of justice and fairness.

It seems due to political maneuvers the piecing out of land for a state of Israel came about and the existing Arab populations were left to suffer the consequences.

To this day the western countries advocate for Israel while Palestinians did not have the same leverage although yes larger Arab countries have sided with Palestinians it is not with the same weight as the western countries bring to bare.

To me it has always appeared as in imbalance of unfair circumstances.

I fully agree with Israel's right to exist and not be attacked by any Palestinian groups.

Nevertheless it is difficult to overlook the imbalance of circumstances which resulted in hundreds of villages since '48 and '67 which formerly were Palestinian become lost to the Israel.

Hundred of villages in a country so tiny it would barely cover the City of Dallas? There is no way.

The fact is that not one of the Arabs currnetly living on that land was required to give up any property of any kind when the Nation of Israel was established. All were invited to stay and co-exist peacefully with the Jews but under an Israeli government under authority of the Jews. It is ONLY those Arabs who left Israel so that approaching Arab armies could annihilate the Jews who lost anything. They were not Israeli citizens yet and they were not welcomed back. The Arabs who stayed not only retained their property but were given full Israeli citizenship and full rights of citizenship.

The bottom line is those who are willing to allow the Jews to live in peace are not mistreated by anybody. Those who wish to deny the Jews not only the land but their very lives have not fared so well. The land of Israel was established on land held by Great Britain with the full consent of Britain and with the full authority of the newly organized United Nations.

The Jews needed a homeland to get away from hateful oppressive governments and they wanted the land they believe God gave them. It is a tiny tiny piece of land. They should be allowed to have it.

UN General Assembly
Resolution 181 gave Israel land, somehow Israel decided it wasn't enough land...

True at the time the Palestinians rejected it. Today however I'm sure the sentiment is entirely different for both sides.

Plan Dalet - depending on interpretation was a plan of conquest and expulsion if necessary.
Again subject to interpretation.

Whatever Israel thought about how much land they were given, they acccepted Resolution 181. The Palestinians did not and have not to this day.

While history is conflicted on whether Plan Dalet was purely defensive or contained offensive components, most reliable historians go with the defensive theory. Both sides, however, agree that Israeli Arabs could stay on their property so long as they did not interfere or resist Israel's defensive measures in the face of certain attack by assembling Arab armies. Those who resisted Israeli defense measures or presumed to aid and abet the imminent Arab attack would be expelled.

I have a hard time finding any rational reason to criticize such a policy.
 
Hundred of villages in a country so tiny it would barely cover the City of Dallas? There is no way.

The fact is that not one of the Arabs currnetly living on that land was required to give up any property of any kind when the Nation of Israel was established. All were invited to stay and co-exist peacefully with the Jews but under an Israeli government under authority of the Jews. It is ONLY those Arabs who left Israel so that approaching Arab armies could annihilate the Jews who lost anything. They were not Israeli citizens yet and they were not welcomed back. The Arabs who stayed not only retained their property but were given full Israeli citizenship and full rights of citizenship.

The bottom line is those who are willing to allow the Jews to live in peace are not mistreated by anybody. Those who wish to deny the Jews not only the land but their very lives have not fared so well. The land of Israel was established on land held by Great Britain with the full consent of Britain and with the full authority of the newly organized United Nations.

The Jews needed a homeland to get away from hateful oppressive governments and they wanted the land they believe God gave them. It is a tiny tiny piece of land. They should be allowed to have it.

UN General Assembly
Resolution 181 gave Israel land, somehow Israel decided it wasn't enough land...

True at the time the Palestinians rejected it. Today however I'm sure the sentiment is entirely different for both sides.

Plan Dalet - depending on interpretation was a plan of conquest and expulsion if necessary.
Again subject to interpretation.

Whatever Israel thought about how much land they were given, they acccepted Resolution 181. The Palestinians did not and have not to this day.

While history is conflicted on whether Plan Dalet was purely defensive or contained offensive components, most reliable historians go with the defensive theory. Both sides, however, agree that Israeli Arabs could stay on their property so long as they did not interfere or resist Israel's defensive measures in the face of certain attack by assembling Arab armies. Those who resisted Israeli defense measures or presumed to aid and abet the imminent Arab attack would be expelled.

I have a hard time finding any rational reason to criticize such a policy.

in may, 1949, the israeli government, as a condition to their being accepted as a member state to the United Nations, agreed to UNGA resolution 273, which contained language that compelled israel to abide by UNGA resolution 181.

this was an agreement made, not with the palestinians nor with the arab states, but with the nations of the world.

i would certainly argue that israel had every right to defend herself within the provisions outlined in 181, but i would also argue that any pretext israel used to expand her territory beyond the designated UNGA 181 borders was/is a breech of the agreement that she made with the nations of the world.

or. i.e. if i make an agreement with you, i am obliged to keep it, no matter what someone else other thasan you does to me.

i think also your mistake is lumping all arab states and the palestinians together. that would not be unsimilar to blaming jews in L.A. for the actions of the settlers in the west bank. i don't think you want to head in that direction.
 

Forum List

Back
Top