What does "from the river to the sea, Palestine must be free" mean?

[Coyote]

What I have said is that until the status of the occupied territories is decided Israel should not be building new settlements. That is FAR CRY from saying Jews should be forbidden from living there! Do have any other dishonest things to claim?

I disagree. That is exactly what you are saying. You are saying that there is a territory, where Jews should not be permitted to build (live). Sure, only until the conflict is settled. But still. Equality would demand that neither side be permitted to build in the disputed territory.

No. I am saying that this is a territory one nation captured in war and its status is not yet settled. You are trying to make it about Jews. What ever people’s LIVED there at the time of the occupation continue living there INCLUDING Jews until such time as it is settled. It is THOSE people who have the right to build or not build, not one side or another. How is it equality to allow a bunch of outsiders to immigrate into it and build it up? Using your logic, Egyptians should be allowed to send people in...and Jordan....and anyone else.

You are aware of Course that in Arab Countries the Arab DROVE out the Jews right? Jews that had lived there for centuries? I don't see you whining about that at all.

Yes. And that has what to do with this particular argument? Two wrongs make a right, is that it? I don’t need to whine about it because I have stated repeatedly and unequivocally that forced population transfers are wrong, regardless of who is involved.

No one cares what a dhimmified American pseudo-SJW thinks on the internet.

Israel is here to stay. Impregnable and irrevocable. You and your Islamic masters need to come to terms with that inconvenient truth.

Don't be an idiot. You clearly are jumping in without having read the thread. Of course Israel is here to stay, not arguing otherwise. Now go read the thread before you look any more stupid.

 

[Coyote]

Oh, and I actually agree with your comments about Israel annexing Area C (or at least parts of Area C) and making unilateral decisions on which territory will belong to which State. Its the only possible solution.

The problem is the upcoming war. Israel does not want to fight Hezbollah in the north, Hamas in the south and Arab Palestine to the east all at the same time. To say nothing of fighting her own interior hostile population. After the war, when the dust settles, I think the face of the Middle East will be somewhat, well, changed. I don't think in any way this is going to be good for the Arab Palestinians.

Meaning what exactly? What are you proposing?

 

[P F Tinmore]

No one is demanding the Jewish people accommodate people to their own detriment

Yes. They are. Do you want examples?

but they should respect them, respect their cultures and heritage as part of the new national whole. And YES I agree they do a pretty decent job, certainly better than their neighbors.

Yeah. They do an exceptional job. They do a better job than literally any other nation on the planet and in history. They DO respect Arab culture and Arab religion and Arab heritage -- even to the point where they RESTRICT their own freedoms and rights in order to accommodate their Arab citizens because those Arab citizens can't even SHARE a holy place that they STOLE with the original owners. What other culture DOES that? Other cultures blow up monuments and holy places that don't suit them. Can you name a single other culture in the world which deliberately denied its own people universal, legal and moral rights in order to accommodate another culture, let alone a usurping culture? It is INSANE to demand that the Jewish people "do better" with respecting Arab Palestinians and their cultures and their heritage. Compared to WHO? And that is before we even begin to discuss reciprocity in that matter. Where is the respect for Jewish culture in the Arab world? Are you kidding me? You say they do a decent job, yet demand they do more. While at the same time insisting that Arab Palestinians, and Arabs in general, have "nothing" and therefore lack an ability to "do more" or "be something other than nothing".

It really sounds like you are trying to justify forced expulsions because ultimately THAT is what these population exchanges are.

On the contrary -- I'm saying that this is the NORM in the past. What you are trying to justify is that the NORM is awesome until...well, Jews. If we are going to apply the NORM -- then there wouldn't BE Arabs in Israel. The whole reason this is still a conflict is because the Jewish people chose not to expel their Arabs. While every other Arab nation did choose to expel their Jews. That is THE norm, after all. That is what the Arab Palestinians demand and for them even that is not enough! I am trying to point out the standards which are applied to Israel which are applied to no other State. Ever.

FFS, just look at the "normative" global position on Jewish "settlers". Make no mistake, its ethnic cleansing. Jewish people are not allowed to live here. Because, Jews. Because Arab countries have a RIGHT to live Jew-free. Its INSANE that people think this way.

To be clear, I am against forced expulsion in principle. BUT in the conflict between expulsion and having a hostile, violent population in your midst, threatening your citizens, I'll take expulsion any day. Evil, yes. Necessary evil, damn yes. And I think that is a GOOD thing. You want self-determination? Yep? Awesome! You should have it. You want to stay on the exact plot of land that your ancestors bought? Cool. You should have it. But you don't get to have both. You have to choose. And its a personal decision. Up to each individual. And they should have the choice. But if they insist that they should have their plot of land while violently fighting against the self-determination of another people -- expulsion it is. The alternative is absolutely unconscionable.

And! If the Arab Palestinian people think that they can't POSSIBLY live in the presence of Jews, (because ewwww). I am ALSO okay with that. For the same reason. I'll take expulsion any day over having to worry about my safety and the lives of my children because some people think its okay to murder Jews if they are on the wrong side of some imaginary line.

But you are trying to argue both sides of the fence. You argue that ethnic cleansing is abhorrent while simultaneously suggesting that Jews must be forbidden to live in certain places.

FFS, just look at the "normative" global position on Jewish "settlers". Make no mistake, its ethnic cleansing. Jewish people are not allowed to live here. Because, Jews. Because Arab countries have a RIGHT to live Jew-free. Its INSANE that people think this way.

FFS let’s look at this statement! HOW IS IT ETHNIC CLEANSING to argue that people who do not currently live in the region have some right to come in and live there? Your paragraph is a jumble.

Who here is claiming Arab countries have a RIGHT to live Jew Free?

What does that have to do with who lives in the occupied territories prior to a final resolution? How is it ethnic cleansing to say stop allowing outsiders to immigrate in (whether it is Jews from Israel or Arabs from Jordan) and building expanding communities? That is why I say Israel should annex it and be done with it rather than perpetuating this farce.

Ethnic cleansing is forced population transfers.

My argument is that preventing people of a certain ethnic heritage from living in a particular territory should be considered ethnic cleansing as it specifically and deliberately attempts to keep a territory "clean" from that ethnic group. That is exactly what is happening in Judea and Samaria.

I disagree. For one, ethnic cleansing has a specific meaning. You don’t get to make up your own new definition of it.

This is from Wikipedia, but they are all essentially the same:

Ethnic cleansing is the systematic forced removal of ethnic or racial groups from a given territory by a more powerful ethnic group, often with the intent of making it ethnically homogeneous.[1][page needed] The forces applied may be various forms of forced migration (deportation, population transfer), intimidation, as well as genocide and genocidal rape.​

The issue of the occupied territories is that it was land TAKEN in a war, that already had a resident population who is seeing the occupying nation bringing in thousands of it’s own nationals to build new (ethnically exclusive I might add) communities on their land. You are trying to change it from a struggle over occupation to one of “it’s because they’re Jews” and completely ignoring the larger context of the conflict in regards to settlements.

The problem is that no one uses the language of equality, saying that the disputed territories must have no internal migration until the conflict is resolved. They specifically use language which is filled with meaning. 'Settlers' are always Jewish, never Arab. The territory is 'occupied', not 'disputed' (and depending on who is speaking it is either ALL occupied or '67 occupied or not occupied at all). Arabs have a 'right to return', but Jews are 'outsiders'. Arab building in the disputed territory (specifically Area C) is always 'legal' even though its not and Jewish building in Area C is always 'illegal' even though its not.

Equality...how? By refusing to call things what they are...or renaming them to subtly alter their emotional connotations? Let’s look at words.

Settlers. That is what they call themselves. No one else started that term. The Jewish settlers took that term for themselves with the intention of “resettling” ancient biblical Israel as per what they felt to be their religious right. Settlers will never be Arab.

Occupied territory. Another good one. For decades that was the term. Israeli politicos used it. Even the Israeli High Court affirmed it. Then suddenly....it wasn’t. What changed? It certainly wasn’t resolved. Nor was it annexed. Nor was it returned to the inhabitants. What changed? Only the choice of words and the emotional content (one might even call it a subtle and persuasive propaganda) which those words impart.

More words...right of return...invaders. According to Team P Arabs have a right of return and Jews are invaders. According to Team I Jews have a right of a right of return and Arabs are invaders. Pick your poison. It may not be the language of equality but there is a warped sort of equality to it.

If we want to extend the argument on the language of equality further, why are Palestinian fighters labeled terrorists and Jewish fighters labeled soldiers?

Words have a meaning and attempting to redefine them or misapply them in an attempt to create some sort of emotional equality does not seem very workable to me.

If you are actually trying to argue that there should be no more building in all of Area C, by anyone -- argue that point instead of arguing "settlers" and "occupied territory".

No. I am not arguing there should be no building by anyone. I am arguing that the people who were there at the time of the occupation should build what ever they want and outsiders should hold off until it is resolved. And it does not matter if the outsiders are Jews or Arabs or martians. If Israel can’t see fit to allow that then they should annex it and take the consequences rather than take this devious approach of gradually undermining any possibility for a two state solution in a territory they never had any intention of relinquishing in the first place.

The issue of the occupied territories is that it was land TAKEN in a war, that already had a resident population

Which country lost the territory?

If we want to extend the argument on the language of equality further, why are Palestinian fighters labeled terrorists and Jewish fighters labeled soldiers?

Do the Palestinian fighters fit the definition of soldier in the Geneva Convention?

Do civilians have the right to defend themselves, their families, their homes, and their country?

 

[Coyote]

Yes. They are. Do you want examples?

Yeah. They do an exceptional job. They do a better job than literally any other nation on the planet and in history. They DO respect Arab culture and Arab religion and Arab heritage -- even to the point where they RESTRICT their own freedoms and rights in order to accommodate their Arab citizens because those Arab citizens can't even SHARE a holy place that they STOLE with the original owners. What other culture DOES that? Other cultures blow up monuments and holy places that don't suit them. Can you name a single other culture in the world which deliberately denied its own people universal, legal and moral rights in order to accommodate another culture, let alone a usurping culture? It is INSANE to demand that the Jewish people "do better" with respecting Arab Palestinians and their cultures and their heritage. Compared to WHO? And that is before we even begin to discuss reciprocity in that matter. Where is the respect for Jewish culture in the Arab world? Are you kidding me? You say they do a decent job, yet demand they do more. While at the same time insisting that Arab Palestinians, and Arabs in general, have "nothing" and therefore lack an ability to "do more" or "be something other than nothing".

On the contrary -- I'm saying that this is the NORM in the past. What you are trying to justify is that the NORM is awesome until...well, Jews. If we are going to apply the NORM -- then there wouldn't BE Arabs in Israel. The whole reason this is still a conflict is because the Jewish people chose not to expel their Arabs. While every other Arab nation did choose to expel their Jews. That is THE norm, after all. That is what the Arab Palestinians demand and for them even that is not enough! I am trying to point out the standards which are applied to Israel which are applied to no other State. Ever.

FFS, just look at the "normative" global position on Jewish "settlers". Make no mistake, its ethnic cleansing. Jewish people are not allowed to live here. Because, Jews. Because Arab countries have a RIGHT to live Jew-free. Its INSANE that people think this way.

To be clear, I am against forced expulsion in principle. BUT in the conflict between expulsion and having a hostile, violent population in your midst, threatening your citizens, I'll take expulsion any day. Evil, yes. Necessary evil, damn yes. And I think that is a GOOD thing. You want self-determination? Yep? Awesome! You should have it. You want to stay on the exact plot of land that your ancestors bought? Cool. You should have it. But you don't get to have both. You have to choose. And its a personal decision. Up to each individual. And they should have the choice. But if they insist that they should have their plot of land while violently fighting against the self-determination of another people -- expulsion it is. The alternative is absolutely unconscionable.

And! If the Arab Palestinian people think that they can't POSSIBLY live in the presence of Jews, (because ewwww). I am ALSO okay with that. For the same reason. I'll take expulsion any day over having to worry about my safety and the lives of my children because some people think its okay to murder Jews if they are on the wrong side of some imaginary line.

But you are trying to argue both sides of the fence. You argue that ethnic cleansing is abhorrent while simultaneously suggesting that Jews must be forbidden to live in certain places.

FFS, just look at the "normative" global position on Jewish "settlers". Make no mistake, its ethnic cleansing. Jewish people are not allowed to live here. Because, Jews. Because Arab countries have a RIGHT to live Jew-free. Its INSANE that people think this way.

FFS let’s look at this statement! HOW IS IT ETHNIC CLEANSING to argue that people who do not currently live in the region have some right to come in and live there? Your paragraph is a jumble.

Who here is claiming Arab countries have a RIGHT to live Jew Free?

What does that have to do with who lives in the occupied territories prior to a final resolution? How is it ethnic cleansing to say stop allowing outsiders to immigrate in (whether it is Jews from Israel or Arabs from Jordan) and building expanding communities? That is why I say Israel should annex it and be done with it rather than perpetuating this farce.

Ethnic cleansing is forced population transfers.

My argument is that preventing people of a certain ethnic heritage from living in a particular territory should be considered ethnic cleansing as it specifically and deliberately attempts to keep a territory "clean" from that ethnic group. That is exactly what is happening in Judea and Samaria.

I disagree. For one, ethnic cleansing has a specific meaning. You don’t get to make up your own new definition of it.

This is from Wikipedia, but they are all essentially the same:

Ethnic cleansing is the systematic forced removal of ethnic or racial groups from a given territory by a more powerful ethnic group, often with the intent of making it ethnically homogeneous.[1][page needed] The forces applied may be various forms of forced migration (deportation, population transfer), intimidation, as well as genocide and genocidal rape.​

The issue of the occupied territories is that it was land TAKEN in a war, that already had a resident population who is seeing the occupying nation bringing in thousands of it’s own nationals to build new (ethnically exclusive I might add) communities on their land. You are trying to change it from a struggle over occupation to one of “it’s because they’re Jews” and completely ignoring the larger context of the conflict in regards to settlements.

The problem is that no one uses the language of equality, saying that the disputed territories must have no internal migration until the conflict is resolved. They specifically use language which is filled with meaning. 'Settlers' are always Jewish, never Arab. The territory is 'occupied', not 'disputed' (and depending on who is speaking it is either ALL occupied or '67 occupied or not occupied at all). Arabs have a 'right to return', but Jews are 'outsiders'. Arab building in the disputed territory (specifically Area C) is always 'legal' even though its not and Jewish building in Area C is always 'illegal' even though its not.

Equality...how? By refusing to call things what they are...or renaming them to subtly alter their emotional connotations? Let’s look at words.

Settlers. That is what they call themselves. No one else started that term. The Jewish settlers took that term for themselves with the intention of “resettling” ancient biblical Israel as per what they felt to be their religious right. Settlers will never be Arab.

Occupied territory. Another good one. For decades that was the term. Israeli politicos used it. Even the Israeli High Court affirmed it. Then suddenly....it wasn’t. What changed? It certainly wasn’t resolved. Nor was it annexed. Nor was it returned to the inhabitants. What changed? Only the choice of words and the emotional content (one might even call it a subtle and persuasive propaganda) which those words impart.

More words...right of return...invaders. According to Team P Arabs have a right of return and Jews are invaders. According to Team I Jews have a right of a right of return and Arabs are invaders. Pick your poison. It may not be the language of equality but there is a warped sort of equality to it.

If we want to extend the argument on the language of equality further, why are Palestinian fighters labeled terrorists and Jewish fighters labeled soldiers?

Words have a meaning and attempting to redefine them or misapply them in an attempt to create some sort of emotional equality does not seem very workable to me.

If you are actually trying to argue that there should be no more building in all of Area C, by anyone -- argue that point instead of arguing "settlers" and "occupied territory".

No. I am not arguing there should be no building by anyone. I am arguing that the people who were there at the time of the occupation should build what ever they want and outsiders should hold off until it is resolved. And it does not matter if the outsiders are Jews or Arabs or martians. If Israel can’t see fit to allow that then they should annex it and take the consequences rather than take this devious approach of gradually undermining any possibility for a two state solution in a territory they never had any intention of relinquishing in the first place.

The issue of the occupied territories is that it was land TAKEN in a war, that already had a resident population

Which country lost the territory?

If we want to extend the argument on the language of equality further, why are Palestinian fighters labeled terrorists and Jewish fighters labeled soldiers?

Do the Palestinian fighters fit the definition of soldier in the Geneva Convention?

Do civilians have the right to defend themselves, their families, their homes, and their country?

Does that include Israeli civilians?

 

[USAF 2023]

What I have said is that until the status of the occupied territories is decided Israel should not be building new settlements. That is FAR CRY from saying Jews should be forbidden from living there! Do have any other dishonest things to claim?

I disagree. That is exactly what you are saying. You are saying that there is a territory, where Jews should not be permitted to build (live). Sure, only until the conflict is settled. But still. Equality would demand that neither side be permitted to build in the disputed territory.

No. I am saying that this is a territory one nation captured in war and its status is not yet settled. You are trying to make it about Jews. What ever people’s LIVED there at the time of the occupation continue living there INCLUDING Jews until such time as it is settled. It is THOSE people who have the right to build or not build, not one side or another. How is it equality to allow a bunch of outsiders to immigrate into it and build it up? Using your logic, Egyptians should be allowed to send people in...and Jordan....and anyone else.

You are aware of Course that in Arab Countries the Arab DROVE out the Jews right? Jews that had lived there for centuries? I don't see you whining about that at all.

With the Pro Palestinian Team there is always a Doubke Standard. Somehow “ International Law “ doesn’t apply. In order to be legitimate, fair and just it has to apply to everybody

 

[Shusha]

The problem is that the conflict over Area C IS reduced to a conflict about Jews in discussion. It is always about settlers (always Jews) who are outsiders and don't belong there. That DOES make it about Jews. Because no one goes into detail about discussing whether an individual, or a family and descendants, or a town has a right to be in a particular place. Instead -- if they are Jews, they don't belong over the Green Line. Because territory by conquest, blah, blah, blah. Same as always.

If we wanted to make it about something OTHER than Jews, we'd use language that specifically defined the people we were talking about. And we would use language which specifically defined the territory we were talking about. We wouldn't be able to discuss the rights of people to be in a place in generalities.

We would have to understand the history of each location and each family and then create an objective set of criteria that can be applied universally -- based on facts other than ethnicity.

You wouldn't be able to speak in generalities like, "Israel should not build any new settlements" because it would depend on the history of the place of the settlement and the people that lived there.

For example, let's take one rather well-known "settlement". It was built on land purchased in the 1920s and 1930s. It was cleansed of its inhabitants through massacre and expulsion in 1948. It ended up on the "wrong" side of the Green Line in 1949 and now lies in disputed territory. When people return to re-build that town -- are they outsiders or no?

 

[Shusha]

Oh, and I actually agree with your comments about Israel annexing Area C (or at least parts of Area C) and making unilateral decisions on which territory will belong to which State. Its the only possible solution.

The problem is the upcoming war. Israel does not want to fight Hezbollah in the north, Hamas in the south and Arab Palestine to the east all at the same time. To say nothing of fighting her own interior hostile population. After the war, when the dust settles, I think the face of the Middle East will be somewhat, well, changed. I don't think in any way this is going to be good for the Arab Palestinians.

Meaning what exactly? What are you proposing?

I'm not proposing anything. I'm just predicting that the Arab Palestinians are going to be fighting on the side that will eventually lose and the results will be dire.

 

[Shusha]

If we want to extend the argument on the language of equality further, why are Palestinian fighters labeled terrorists and Jewish fighters labeled soldiers?

Yes! Exactly. This is a PERFECT example of using language to warp reality. In this case, trying to equivalize things which are not equivalent. People, of any nationality or ethnicity, who deliberately target civilian innocents or who indiscriminately fire rockets at civilian areas or who deliberately entangle civilian innocents with military targets are, by definition, TERRORISTS. People, of any nationality or ethnicity, who have established military rules of engagement, engage with combatants and target military objectives, by definition, are SOLDIERS.

 

[P F Tinmore]

FFS let’s look at this statement! HOW IS IT ETHNIC CLEANSING to argue that people who do not currently live in the region have some right to come in and live there? Your paragraph is a jumble.

Who here is claiming Arab countries have a RIGHT to live Jew Free?

What does that have to do with who lives in the occupied territories prior to a final resolution? How is it ethnic cleansing to say stop allowing outsiders to immigrate in (whether it is Jews from Israel or Arabs from Jordan) and building expanding communities? That is why I say Israel should annex it and be done with it rather than perpetuating this farce.

Ethnic cleansing is forced population transfers.

My argument is that preventing people of a certain ethnic heritage from living in a particular territory should be considered ethnic cleansing as it specifically and deliberately attempts to keep a territory "clean" from that ethnic group. That is exactly what is happening in Judea and Samaria.

I disagree. For one, ethnic cleansing has a specific meaning. You don’t get to make up your own new definition of it.

This is from Wikipedia, but they are all essentially the same:

Ethnic cleansing is the systematic forced removal of ethnic or racial groups from a given territory by a more powerful ethnic group, often with the intent of making it ethnically homogeneous.[1][page needed] The forces applied may be various forms of forced migration (deportation, population transfer), intimidation, as well as genocide and genocidal rape.​

The issue of the occupied territories is that it was land TAKEN in a war, that already had a resident population who is seeing the occupying nation bringing in thousands of it’s own nationals to build new (ethnically exclusive I might add) communities on their land. You are trying to change it from a struggle over occupation to one of “it’s because they’re Jews” and completely ignoring the larger context of the conflict in regards to settlements.

The problem is that no one uses the language of equality, saying that the disputed territories must have no internal migration until the conflict is resolved. They specifically use language which is filled with meaning. 'Settlers' are always Jewish, never Arab. The territory is 'occupied', not 'disputed' (and depending on who is speaking it is either ALL occupied or '67 occupied or not occupied at all). Arabs have a 'right to return', but Jews are 'outsiders'. Arab building in the disputed territory (specifically Area C) is always 'legal' even though its not and Jewish building in Area C is always 'illegal' even though its not.

Equality...how? By refusing to call things what they are...or renaming them to subtly alter their emotional connotations? Let’s look at words.

Settlers. That is what they call themselves. No one else started that term. The Jewish settlers took that term for themselves with the intention of “resettling” ancient biblical Israel as per what they felt to be their religious right. Settlers will never be Arab.

Occupied territory. Another good one. For decades that was the term. Israeli politicos used it. Even the Israeli High Court affirmed it. Then suddenly....it wasn’t. What changed? It certainly wasn’t resolved. Nor was it annexed. Nor was it returned to the inhabitants. What changed? Only the choice of words and the emotional content (one might even call it a subtle and persuasive propaganda) which those words impart.

More words...right of return...invaders. According to Team P Arabs have a right of return and Jews are invaders. According to Team I Jews have a right of a right of return and Arabs are invaders. Pick your poison. It may not be the language of equality but there is a warped sort of equality to it.

If we want to extend the argument on the language of equality further, why are Palestinian fighters labeled terrorists and Jewish fighters labeled soldiers?

Words have a meaning and attempting to redefine them or misapply them in an attempt to create some sort of emotional equality does not seem very workable to me.

If you are actually trying to argue that there should be no more building in all of Area C, by anyone -- argue that point instead of arguing "settlers" and "occupied territory".

No. I am not arguing there should be no building by anyone. I am arguing that the people who were there at the time of the occupation should build what ever they want and outsiders should hold off until it is resolved. And it does not matter if the outsiders are Jews or Arabs or martians. If Israel can’t see fit to allow that then they should annex it and take the consequences rather than take this devious approach of gradually undermining any possibility for a two state solution in a territory they never had any intention of relinquishing in the first place.

The issue of the occupied territories is that it was land TAKEN in a war, that already had a resident population

Which country lost the territory?

If we want to extend the argument on the language of equality further, why are Palestinian fighters labeled terrorists and Jewish fighters labeled soldiers?

Do the Palestinian fighters fit the definition of soldier in the Geneva Convention?

Do civilians have the right to defend themselves, their families, their homes, and their country?

Does that include Israeli civilians?

As long as they do not live on stolen land.

 

[Shusha]

Israel captured territory in war, that is a matter of historical record.

I'm assuming that you mean 1967, so please correct me if I'm wrong on that. No. The implication is that she captured someone else's territory in war and that it is illegal to do that. She did not. She recovered her own territory. If you think you have a good legal argument for that territory being under the sovereignty of some other State, please defend that position. I believe you will find that an impossible task. The only options are that the territory already belonged to Israel, and there is nothing illegal about exerting sovereignty over your own territory OR it was terra nullius, and there is nothing illegal about exerting sovereignty over territory belonging to no one in a war of self-defense.

I agree that there are two peoples seeking self determination on that particular territory at this particular time, however the only people (not peoples) with any rights there should be those who were inhabiting the area at the time it was taken until its final resolution.

Inhabiting the area at what time? Where are you starting the clock? 1967? So the people who were ethnically cleansed from Area C in 1948, are they now "outsiders" in 1967?

And how can self-determination MEAN anything if the collective deserving of self-determination is limited to a specific place at a very specific time in history? The ONLY Jewish people who have a right to self-determination were the ones living in Area C in 1967? That rejects the entire history of the region and the POINT of self-determination.

 

[Shusha]

They were not living there. The immigrated in. They are outsiders just as much as an Egyptian would be or a Syrian in the context of the conflict.

But this is what I mean. The Jewish people, having been granted the right of return and the right of self-determination on their ancestral and historical lands for reconstituting their national Home are NOT equivalent to Egyptians and Syrians. The former belong to the collective which has rights to the land. The latter are foreigners with their own homeland.

 

[Coyote]

The problem is that the conflict over Area C IS reduced to a conflict about Jews in discussion. It is always about settlers (always Jews) who are outsiders and don't belong there. That DOES make it about Jews. Because no one goes into detail about discussing whether an individual, or a family and descendants, or a town has a right to be in a particular place. Instead -- if they are Jews, they don't belong over the Green Line. Because territory by conquest, blah, blah, blah. Same as always.

What superficially makes it “about Jews” is not Jews but Israel’s actions. Why are the ONLY settlements Jewish? As far as I can recall Israel has an Arab population of citizens who are also suffering from a housing shortage and their ability to expand and build is sharply curtailed by Israel’s system of permits. So there is an influx of Israeli Jews moving in to Area C....and no one else. If there was an influx of Arabs from outside Area C immigrating in and building settlements while the land was under their occupation, I would be saying the exact same thing and I would not blame the resident population, be it Jewish or Arab...or Martian...one bit for feeling angry, invaded, and disenfranchised. When you make it about Jews, you are ignoring the larger context, whether right or wrong, of that bit of land.

If we wanted to make it about something OTHER than Jews, we'd use language that specifically defined the people we were talking about. And we would use language which specifically defined the territory we were talking about. We wouldn't be able to discuss the rights of people to be in a place in generalities.

What exactly do you mean? The settlers chose and continue to use that term for themselves. That is who they are and it is based on their philosophy and what they feel is their right. One side uses Occuppied...one side uses Disputed. Both carry a boatload of hidden meaning. Neither is exactly neutral in terms of rights.

What gives people rights to be in places? Usually residency and sovereignty and face it, force and power of one group to impose it’s will on another.

We would have to understand the history of each location and each family and then create an objective set of criteria that can be applied universally -- based on facts other than ethnicity.

You wouldn't be able to speak in generalities like, "Israel should not build any new settlements" because it would depend on the history of the place of the settlement and the people that lived there.

What about generalities like Israel has a right to build settlements in territory it is occupying? Why Jewish only? Is it about rights at all or a strategic and political move to amass enough population to annex it and expel the Arab population that remains hostile to it?

For example, let's take one rather well-known "settlement". It was built on land purchased in the 1920s and 1930s. It was cleansed of its inhabitants through massacre and expulsion in 1948. It ended up on the "wrong" side of the Green Line in 1949 and now lies in disputed territory. When people return to re-build that town -- are they outsiders or no?

They fall in the same category as the Palestinians who were expelled and are now on the wrong side of the line. What do you do?

 

[Coyote]

They were not living there. The immigrated in. They are outsiders just as much as an Egyptian would be or a Syrian in the context of the conflict.

But this is what I mean. The Jewish people, having been granted the right of return and the right of self-determination on their ancestral and historical lands for reconstituting their national Home are NOT equivalent to Egyptians and Syrians. The former belong to the collective which has rights to the land. The latter are foreigners with their own homeland.

Yes they are equivalent. They do not have a “right” to another’s lands. If they are citizens of Israel then they have a right to what is in the sovereign nation of Israel. Not to what lies outside it. Unless Israel annexes it and incorporates it into it’s state they are foreigners just like Syrians or Egyptians. Israel is a state with established boundaries, that is their homeland.

 

[Coyote]

Israel captured territory in war, that is a matter of historical record.

I'm assuming that you mean 1967, so please correct me if I'm wrong on that. No. The implication is that she captured someone else's territory in war and that it is illegal to do that. She did not. She recovered her own territory. If you think you have a good legal argument for that territory being under the sovereignty of some other State, please defend that position. I believe you will find that an impossible task. The only options are that the territory already belonged to Israel, and there is nothing illegal about exerting sovereignty over your own territory OR it was terra nullius, and there is nothing illegal about exerting sovereignty over territory belonging to no one in a war of self-defense.

She recovered her own territory based on what? The Balfour declaration? That promised nothing. Israel’s territory was established at its founding. It has no “rights” to anything else beyond what it can take and hold, like any other nation. The territory was not Israel’s prior to 1967. Who’s it was is certainly arguable but claim it as Israel recovering its own is a disengenius way of white washing a comp,ex issue.

I agree that there are two peoples seeking self determination on that particular territory at this particular time, however the only people (not peoples) with any rights there should be those who were inhabiting the area at the time it was taken until its final resolution.

Inhabiting the area at what time? Where are you starting the clock? 1967? So the people who were ethnically cleansed from Area C in 1948, are they now "outsiders" in 1967?

You have to start the clock somewhere, so start it when Israel became a nation because nationhood is a beginning. Otherwise how far back DO you go, with the many migrations and waves of conquests. You do realize that argument essentially supports the Palestinians claim of right of return then, don’t you?

And how can self-determination MEAN anything if the collective deserving of self-determination is limited to a specific place at a very specific time in history? The ONLY Jewish people who have a right to self-determination were the ones living in Area C in 1967? That rejects the entire history of the region and the POINT of self-determination.

It isn’t an argument of rights of self determination. Those rights are on hold in Area C until it’s status is resolved on way or another. The Jewish people are already exercising their rights of self determination in the sovereign nation of Israel.

 

[Coyote]

My argument is that preventing people of a certain ethnic heritage from living in a particular territory should be considered ethnic cleansing as it specifically and deliberately attempts to keep a territory "clean" from that ethnic group. That is exactly what is happening in Judea and Samaria.

I disagree. For one, ethnic cleansing has a specific meaning. You don’t get to make up your own new definition of it.

This is from Wikipedia, but they are all essentially the same:

Ethnic cleansing is the systematic forced removal of ethnic or racial groups from a given territory by a more powerful ethnic group, often with the intent of making it ethnically homogeneous.[1][page needed] The forces applied may be various forms of forced migration (deportation, population transfer), intimidation, as well as genocide and genocidal rape.​

The issue of the occupied territories is that it was land TAKEN in a war, that already had a resident population who is seeing the occupying nation bringing in thousands of it’s own nationals to build new (ethnically exclusive I might add) communities on their land. You are trying to change it from a struggle over occupation to one of “it’s because they’re Jews” and completely ignoring the larger context of the conflict in regards to settlements.

The problem is that no one uses the language of equality, saying that the disputed territories must have no internal migration until the conflict is resolved. They specifically use language which is filled with meaning. 'Settlers' are always Jewish, never Arab. The territory is 'occupied', not 'disputed' (and depending on who is speaking it is either ALL occupied or '67 occupied or not occupied at all). Arabs have a 'right to return', but Jews are 'outsiders'. Arab building in the disputed territory (specifically Area C) is always 'legal' even though its not and Jewish building in Area C is always 'illegal' even though its not.

Equality...how? By refusing to call things what they are...or renaming them to subtly alter their emotional connotations? Let’s look at words.

Settlers. That is what they call themselves. No one else started that term. The Jewish settlers took that term for themselves with the intention of “resettling” ancient biblical Israel as per what they felt to be their religious right. Settlers will never be Arab.

Occupied territory. Another good one. For decades that was the term. Israeli politicos used it. Even the Israeli High Court affirmed it. Then suddenly....it wasn’t. What changed? It certainly wasn’t resolved. Nor was it annexed. Nor was it returned to the inhabitants. What changed? Only the choice of words and the emotional content (one might even call it a subtle and persuasive propaganda) which those words impart.

More words...right of return...invaders. According to Team P Arabs have a right of return and Jews are invaders. According to Team I Jews have a right of a right of return and Arabs are invaders. Pick your poison. It may not be the language of equality but there is a warped sort of equality to it.

If we want to extend the argument on the language of equality further, why are Palestinian fighters labeled terrorists and Jewish fighters labeled soldiers?

Words have a meaning and attempting to redefine them or misapply them in an attempt to create some sort of emotional equality does not seem very workable to me.

If you are actually trying to argue that there should be no more building in all of Area C, by anyone -- argue that point instead of arguing "settlers" and "occupied territory".

No. I am not arguing there should be no building by anyone. I am arguing that the people who were there at the time of the occupation should build what ever they want and outsiders should hold off until it is resolved. And it does not matter if the outsiders are Jews or Arabs or martians. If Israel can’t see fit to allow that then they should annex it and take the consequences rather than take this devious approach of gradually undermining any possibility for a two state solution in a territory they never had any intention of relinquishing in the first place.

The issue of the occupied territories is that it was land TAKEN in a war, that already had a resident population

Which country lost the territory?

If we want to extend the argument on the language of equality further, why are Palestinian fighters labeled terrorists and Jewish fighters labeled soldiers?

Do the Palestinian fighters fit the definition of soldier in the Geneva Convention?

Do civilians have the right to defend themselves, their families, their homes, and their country?

Does that include Israeli civilians?

As long as they do not live on stolen land.

Stolen from who? What if it was purchased? What if it was land that their family had owned before conflict drove them out? Shouldn’t they have the same rights as Palestinians?

 

[Coyote]

If we want to extend the argument on the language of equality further, why are Palestinian fighters labeled terrorists and Jewish fighters labeled soldiers?

Yes! Exactly. This is a PERFECT example of using language to warp reality. In this case, trying to equivalize things which are not equivalent. People, of any nationality or ethnicity, who deliberately target civilian innocents or who indiscriminately fire rockets at civilian areas or who deliberately entangle civilian innocents with military targets are, by definition, TERRORISTS. People, of any nationality or ethnicity, who have established military rules of engagement, engage with combatants and target military objectives, by definition, are SOLDIERS.

And it is the same thing with the term settlers...or occupied. Both accurately describe the situation. From the point of view of the settlers that is what they are and call themselves. From the point of view of the Palestinians it is an occupation of their ancestral lands. The term “disputed” was a modern invention though it too is accurate.

 

[Coyote]

Oh, and I actually agree with your comments about Israel annexing Area C (or at least parts of Area C) and making unilateral decisions on which territory will belong to which State. Its the only possible solution.

The problem is the upcoming war. Israel does not want to fight Hezbollah in the north, Hamas in the south and Arab Palestine to the east all at the same time. To say nothing of fighting her own interior hostile population. After the war, when the dust settles, I think the face of the Middle East will be somewhat, well, changed. I don't think in any way this is going to be good for the Arab Palestinians.

Meaning what exactly? What are you proposing?

I'm not proposing anything. I'm just predicting that the Arab Palestinians are going to be fighting on the side that will eventually lose and the results will be dire.

Some of it depends on how Israel handles annexation, rights, and citizenship. They hold the reins.

 

[Coyote]

What I have said is that until the status of the occupied territories is decided Israel should not be building new settlements. That is FAR CRY from saying Jews should be forbidden from living there! Do have any other dishonest things to claim?

I disagree. That is exactly what you are saying. You are saying that there is a territory, where Jews should not be permitted to build (live). Sure, only until the conflict is settled. But still. Equality would demand that neither side be permitted to build in the disputed territory.

No. I am saying that this is a territory one nation captured in war and its status is not yet settled. You are trying to make it about Jews. What ever people’s LIVED there at the time of the occupation continue living there INCLUDING Jews until such time as it is settled. It is THOSE people who have the right to build or not build, not one side or another. How is it equality to allow a bunch of outsiders to immigrate into it and build it up? Using your logic, Egyptians should be allowed to send people in...and Jordan....and anyone else.

You are aware of Course that in Arab Countries the Arab DROVE out the Jews right? Jews that had lived there for centuries? I don't see you whining about that at all.

With the Pro Palestinian Team there is always a Doubke Standard. Somehow “ International Law “ doesn’t apply. In order to be legitimate, fair and just it has to apply to everybody

There are double standard every where. You just don’t notice.

 

[USAF 2023]

What I have said is that until the status of the occupied territories is decided Israel should not be building new settlements. That is FAR CRY from saying Jews should be forbidden from living there! Do have any other dishonest things to claim?

I disagree. That is exactly what you are saying. You are saying that there is a territory, where Jews should not be permitted to build (live). Sure, only until the conflict is settled. But still. Equality would demand that neither side be permitted to build in the disputed territory.

No. I am saying that this is a territory one nation captured in war and its status is not yet settled. You are trying to make it about Jews. What ever people’s LIVED there at the time of the occupation continue living there INCLUDING Jews until such time as it is settled. It is THOSE people who have the right to build or not build, not one side or another. How is it equality to allow a bunch of outsiders to immigrate into it and build it up? Using your logic, Egyptians should be allowed to send people in...and Jordan....and anyone else.

You are aware of Course that in Arab Countries the Arab DROVE out the Jews right? Jews that had lived there for centuries? I don't see you whining about that at all.

With the Pro Palestinian Team there is always a Doubke Standard. Somehow “ International Law “ doesn’t apply. In order to be legitimate, fair and just it has to apply to everybody

There are double standard every where. You just don’t notice.

I noticed. Just to prove there is no such thing as “ International Law” If there was it would apply to everybody

 

[Shusha]

She recovered her own territory based on what? The Balfour declaration? That promised nothing. Israel’s territory was established at its founding. It has no “rights” to anything else beyond what it can take and hold, like any other nation. The territory was not Israel’s prior to 1967. Who’s it was is certainly arguable but claim it as Israel recovering its own is a disengenius way of white washing a comp,ex issue.

Its not disingenuous at all, and certainly not white-washing. It is a solid legal claim made from years of study. Israel's sovereign territory was established in 1920 at San Remo and was entrenched in law in the Mandate for Palestine. It was confirmed by treaties of peace with Egypt and with Jordan. If you are going to argue that land taken by force 1967 was illegal because it belonged to someone else, you have to define who it was taken from. Here are your possible options for who the land might have belonged to:

terra nullius (belonging to no one)
Israel
Jordan
Egypt
Palestine

I can fully support, with documentation, my reasons for the land being under the sovereignty of Israel. I can even come up with a relatively good argument for the land being terra nullius, and I occasionally make that argument. If you want, I can go over it again.

Make your case for which one you think it is and why.