More History Before 1967

[georgephillip]

No, we're saying that Israel is the historic homeland of the Jewish people, that they never willingly abandoned the land, and that they are decidedly NOT foreigners. No matter how many people choose to deny or ignore these facts, they remain facts.

You're saying that Jews alone among all nations of the world are entitled to land their ancestors conquered thousands of years ago.

Why is that?

If you misquote me, you get no answer. Feel free to try again.

Are you saying that Jews alone, among all nations of this world, are entitled to land their ancestors conquered thousands of years ago?

 

[Hossfly]

You're saying that Jews alone among all nations of the world are entitled to land their ancestors conquered thousands of years ago.

Why is that?

If you misquote me, you get no answer. Feel free to try again.

Are you saying that Jews alone, among all nations of this world, are entitled to land their ancestors conquered thousands of years ago?

I can't speak for HB67 but I certainly think so. In fact, I know for certain.

 

[georgephillip]

If you misquote me, you get no answer. Feel free to try again.

Are you saying that Jews alone, among all nations of this world, are entitled to land their ancestors conquered thousands of years ago?

I can't speak for HB67 but I certainly think so. In fact, I know for certain.

Therefore, Arab Palestinians with deeds dating from Ottoman times to lands their families have lived on and farmed for generations should step aside for Ashkenazi from Romania, right?

 

[HistoryBefore67]

You're saying that Jews alone among all nations of the world are entitled to land their ancestors conquered thousands of years ago.

Why is that?

If you misquote me, you get no answer. Feel free to try again.

Are you saying that Jews alone, among all nations of this world, are entitled to land their ancestors conquered thousands of years ago?

Almost every country in the world is defined by what the ancestors of the current residents did. You just don't like the idea of a country where the Jews are in power.

 

[Auteur]

If you misquote me, you get no answer. Feel free to try again.

Are you saying that Jews alone, among all nations of this world, are entitled to land their ancestors conquered thousands of years ago?

Almost every country in the world is defined by what the ancestors of the current residents did. You just don't like the idea of a country where the Jews are in power.

Complete nonsense. The history of the world is one of vast movements of peoples and sweeping changes in demographics. Europeans fought over varioius tracts of lands in North and South America, and dislaced the then aborignial inhabitants, who before that we busy displacing each other. Russia expanded from a small principality around Moscow to a huge chunk of the Eurasian land mass. Celts in Britain were ruled by Romans, swamped by Anglo-Saxons, colonized by the Norse, and then again later by a Norse/French hybrid. The Chinese today are turning the demographics of Tibet on its head.

Choosing some "original" time in history, and saying we can all go back to that, is absurd. If this were applied evenly, just about every ethnic group in the world could make a move on some other. My ancestors from 2000 years ago more than likely came from Norway. Today Norway is a discreet community, happy with itself. Some in China, for example, may feel it grossly underpopulated. Some in the Muslm world may distain its culture, and feel it should be changed. But they are happy with themselves. Do you think I have a right to go there, and order people out?

Jews may indeed have emotional feelings for the holy land. This is perfectly fine, but it does not give them a right to displace land standing residents from their home.

 

[georgephillip]

If you misquote me, you get no answer. Feel free to try again.

Are you saying that Jews alone, among all nations of this world, are entitled to land their ancestors conquered thousands of years ago?

Almost every country in the world is defined by what the ancestors of the current residents did. You just don't like the idea of a country where the Jews are in power.

Can you name a nation other than the Jews who are currently demanding title to lands their ancestors lived on thousands of years ago?

 

[georgephillip]

Are you saying that Jews alone, among all nations of this world, are entitled to land their ancestors conquered thousands of years ago?

Almost every country in the world is defined by what the ancestors of the current residents did. You just don't like the idea of a country where the Jews are in power.

Complete nonsense. The history of the world is one of vast movements of peoples and sweeping changes in demographics. Europeans fought over varioius tracts of lands in North and South America, and dislaced the then aborignial inhabitants, who before that we busy displacing each other. Russia expanded from a small principality around Moscow to a huge chunk of the Eurasian land mass. Celts in Britain were ruled by Romans, swamped by Anglo-Saxons, colonized by the Norse, and then again later by a Norse/French hybrid. The Chinese today are turning the demographics of Tibet on its head.

Choosing some "original" time in history, and saying we can all go back to that, is absurd. If this were applied evenly, just about every ethnic group in the world could make a move on some other. My ancestors from 2000 years ago more than likely came from Norway. Today Norway is a discreet community, happy with itself. Some in China, for example, may feel it grossly underpopulated. Some in the Muslm world may distain its culture, and feel it should be changed. But they are happy with themselves. Do you think I have a right to go there, and order people out?

Jews may indeed have emotional feelings for the holy land. This is perfectly fine, but it does not give them a right to displace land standing residents from their home.

Some Zionists have displayed an absolute genius for using the strong emotional feelings that many Jews have for the holy land for some less than holy pur$uit$. If we define Zionism as the national aspiration of the Jewish people for a homeland, it's at least worth asking why Zionism, as a national liberation movement based on the fundamental concepts of equality among nations and self-determination, chose to align itself with the powers of global imperialism. It makes me wonder if elite Zionists were really more concerned with colonization than with liberation.

 

[Auteur]

Concerning the bold, are you implying that if Israel were to lift the naval and air blockade, that those 'militant' feelings' you speak of would just disappear ??

My next question: Why do you think the blockades are there to begin with ?

And finally, can you please elaborate on your statement concerning Gaza being cut off from the world?

Thanks in advance

I think you are simply too caught up in the ongoing cycle of violence and retribution to step back and see a bigger picture. Each outrage is a payback for the previous one, going back through time. If a just settlement is ever going to come though, one must look at root causes. These have been presented here, and denied.

I believe militancy can be reduced and eventually rolled back, but as I say, it will take some honest and courageous talk, something lacking to date. Germany and Israel today have reasonably good relations, and we could hardly think of two groups with greater cause for historical animosity now could we?

Access to Gaza is completely controlled by Israel, except for the short border with Egypt. And until recently, that was more or less the same status, probably due to US pressure on Egypt, leveraged by their considerable financial support.

 

[HistoryBefore67]

Are you saying that Jews alone, among all nations of this world, are entitled to land their ancestors conquered thousands of years ago?

Almost every country in the world is defined by what the ancestors of the current residents did. You just don't like the idea of a country where the Jews are in power.

Can you name a nation other than the Jews who are currently demanding title to lands their ancestors lived on thousands of years ago?

That's not an accurate description of Zionism. If you don't understand the issues, go do some research (and not just on Wikipedia), and then maybe we can have an intelligent discussion.

 

[Auteur]

Auteur, et al,

If this was a short-term confrontation, even one lasting a decade or two, I might agree. But this has been going on for more than half a century.

Mr R- Have you ever served on a committee? If so, I'd bet you'd agree that it is awfully difficult to get even a dozen people to agree on something. Take a population of several million, and a spectrum of opinion is virtually guaranteed, statistically speaking. It is absurd to just guess that millions are in agreement with a certain policy. Even scientific polls can be off by quite a bit.

Further, the majority of Palestinians, on the west bank, are under the PA, which has in fact offered a viable peace plan to Israel, and its stated policy is reconciliation and negociation. Indeed, they have offered large concessions to Israel.

In the case of Gaza, yes there was a vote for Hamas, but under what conditions? Gaza is an open air prison, cut off from the world by Israel, with supplies uncertain, under constant military threat, if not actual attack. Do you think that might generate some militant feelings? Americans have in the past endorsed some pretty radical measures, such as the imperial adventure in Iraq for example, or the suspention of certain civil rights after 9/11, despite a generally comfortable existence. If under constant stress of hunger and attack, how radical would Americans become, do you think?

This is a rationale you want to be careful with, because following this logic Americans, participating in a true democracy, would become targets around the world, from 17 year old backbackers to vacationing grandmothers, due to the foreign policy of the US.

(COMMENT)

The Palestinians are NOT under the constant threat of "attack." Although it is fair to say that they are under the threat of retaliatory strikes. Big! difference. (Don't shoot at them, and they won't shoot at you.)

At to the matter of consensus and duration: The Palestinians have had over a half century to reach some sort of consensus as to whether to pursue peace, or continue the struggle against Israel. I think it is reasonable to assume, unless the general population is moronic in nature, that after 60 years, the committee would have come to a conclusion. I reject the notion that they are mentally incapable of reaching a decision. I think they have. I think they have chosen to be a criminal conspiracy using any international legal hoop to justify continued armed aggression and propaganda to overturn the outcome which allowed the State of Israel to form.

If the Hostile Arab/Palestinian wants the "occupation" to end, and pursue a path towards peace, they need only demonstrate it by word and deed.

They haven't done that, and I do not think it is because it is a very new question and they haven't had time to form a consensus. No, its because they actually don't want to enter into peace arrangements with the State of Israel.

• Recalling also the duty of States under the Charter to settle their international disputes by peaceful means in order not to endanger international peace, security and justice,

• Reaffirming the duty of States not to use armed force to deprive peoples of their right to self-determination, freedom and independence, or to disrupt territorial Integrity,

• Deciding No consideration of whatever nature, whether political, economic, military or otherwise, may serve as a justification for aggression.

Most Respectfully,
R

Let me ask you flat out Mr R- Do you believe it reasonable and accurate to make judgements about people based on their race or ethicity? Correct me if I'm wrong, but that is what you seem to be doing here. You refer to the "Palestinian" as though this was some individual entity. What if I were to refer to the "American", and tut tut about said entities preoccupation with handguns and the drug trade? Sound fair?

As for a peace plan, we have covered this already, although I note general silence when key points are raised, such as the 2002 Saudi peace plan. Palestinians have rejected peace plans in the past (they are not today, at least the PA is not), as they would have turned Palestine into a South African style bantustan, divided by race, with Arabs corresponding to the blacks. Would you accept such terms for your country?

 

[georgephillip]

Almost every country in the world is defined by what the ancestors of the current residents did. You just don't like the idea of a country where the Jews are in power.

Can you name a nation other than the Jews who are currently demanding title to lands their ancestors lived on thousands of years ago?

That's not an accurate description of Zionism. If you don't understand the issues, go do some research (and not just on Wikipedia), and then maybe we can have an intelligent discussion.

The ADL defines Zionism, in part, as "the national aspiration of the Jewish people to a homeland...a vindication of the fundamental concepts of the equality of nations and of self-determination."

Chomsky claims until December 1942 Zionists were found on both sides of the "Jewish state" question:

"Until December 1942, the Zionist movement had no formal commitment to a Jewish state. Until the state was established in May 1948, opposition to a Jewish state was within the Zionist movement.

"Later, the concept 'Zionism' was very narrowly restricted for propaganda reasons.

"By the 1970s, when Israel chose expansion and dependence on the US over security and integration into the region, the concept 'Zionism' was narrowed to refer, in effect, to support for the policies of the government of Israel."

Justice for Palestine?, Noam Chomsky interviewed by Stephen R. Shalom and Justin Podur

What's your choice?

 

[RoccoR]

georgephillip; et al,

Just a minor point of order.

Are you saying that Jews alone, among all nations of this world, are entitled to land their ancestors conquered thousands of years ago?

Almost every country in the world is defined by what the ancestors of the current residents did. You just don't like the idea of a country where the Jews are in power.

Can you name a nation other than the Jews who are currently demanding title to lands their ancestors lived on thousands of years ago?

(COMMENT)

First:

The Jewish People, in forming a national home, are not demanding "title." The idea of "title" is a real estate term of ownership (to him and his heirs - fee simple absolute). The property rights and values of the Arab Palestinian are protected and always have been (it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine); and has been since that was agreed to originally by HRH Faisal and Chairman Weizmann.

The issue is now over sovereignty and regional security. The Hostile Arab/Palestinian (HoAP) presented a security threat which triggered displacement and abandonment. It was never a matter of land ownership. While it was a consideration, until the HoAP uprisings and wars, title (ownership) was protected.

Even today, all this talk about borders and boundaries is a question of "sovereign integrity," and not "title."​

Second:

Those Powers, that made the decision to support the idea behind the Jewish National Home, and later Statehood, understood that very unique problems require a very unique solution. In the early 20th Century, it was very well understood that the Allied Powers, being the strong of the Earth, had a humanitarian responsibility to help the Jewish, being the weak of the Earth, from further exploitation and extermination by self-righteous cultures that see themselves superior to others. Thus, the Allied Powers, thought it best, in recognition of the historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine, set the conditions for reconstituting the Jewish national home.​

I don't think that the early 20th Century leaders, being a product of 19th Century philosophy and teaching, looked at the Arabs of the Levant, under Imperialist Rule for more than 800 year after the fall of the Rome Empire, as a cohesive culture that was able to stand on its own or even understood the complexities of sovereignty. In fact one can see that even today, many that discuss the issues, don't have a grasp between the civil tort issue of land ownership and that of governmental administration, sovereignty and independence.

[Noting: With the exception of the hereditary line of Sharif Hussein bin Ali Hussein (Hashemite line of Kings) Emir of Mecca and King of Hejaz, which fathered the line for the Kings of Jordan, Iraq and Syria; all installed under original Mandate out of the Ottoman Empire. They understood the issue was about sovereignty, responsibility, and power. Only the The Emir of Mecca, HRH Prince Khalid al-Faisal, and the King of Jordan, HM Abdullah II ibn Al-Hussein, of the Hashemite Dynasty remain. Both Iraq and Syria are a mess; and trouble even until today.]​

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[RoccoR]

Auteur, et al,

Sure, I'll answer the best I can.

Let me ask you flat out Mr R- Do you believe it reasonable and accurate to make judgements about people based on their race or ethicity?

(COMMENT)

No.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that is what you seem to be doing here. You refer to the "Palestinian" as though this was some individual entity. What if I were to refer to the "American", and tut tut about said entities preoccupation with handguns and the drug trade? Sound fair?

(COMMENT)

I do not believe the "people" I refer to as Palestinians today, are either a religious entity or a specific ethnic entity. Just as I don't see Americas as either a religious entity or a specific ethnic entity.

I see the Palestinians as a product of Regional development, albeit, very bad development. I see them as the hereditary outcome of five (5) successive generations of regional families that have turn cancerous and virile with hate; unable to focus on anything productive or contributory to their immediate society, their regional culture, or humanity as a whole.

As for a peace plan, we have covered this already, although I note general silence when key points are raised, such as the 2002 Saudi peace plan. Palestinians have rejected peace plans in the past (they are not today, at least the PA is not), as they would have turned Palestine into a South African style bantustan, divided by race, with Arabs corresponding to the blacks. Would you accept such terms for your country?

(COMMENT)

I'm not sure I saw you specifically address His Majesty's Plan. My understanding is that it is not all that dissimilar to the Security Council Resolution 242. The two key points of the Saudi Arabian Plan are:

For Israel to:

a) To withdraw fully from the occupied Arab territories, including the Syrian Golan to the line of 4 June 1967, and from the territories in southern Lebanon that are still occupied;

(b) To arrive at a just and agreed solution to the Palestine refugee problem in accordance with United Nations General Assembly resolution 194 (III);

(c) To accept the establishment of an independent, sovereign Palestinian State in the Palestinian territories occupied since 4 June 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital;​

In exchange, the Arab States will:

(a) Consider the Arab-Israeli conflict at an end and enter into a peace agreement between them and Israel while achieving security for all the States of the region;

(b) Establish normal relations with Israel in the context of this comprehensive peace;​

There are some serious risks involved an this arrangement. The Council of the League of Arab States doesn't actually underwrite the agreement (if adopted) for enforcement purposes. But, it is up to the Israelis to determine if it is in their best interest to adopt such an agreement.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Auteur]

Auteur, et al,

Sure, I'll answer the best I can.

Let me ask you flat out Mr R- Do you believe it reasonable and accurate to make judgements about people based on their race or ethicity?

(COMMENT)

No.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that is what you seem to be doing here. You refer to the "Palestinian" as though this was some individual entity. What if I were to refer to the "American", and tut tut about said entities preoccupation with handguns and the drug trade? Sound fair?

(COMMENT)

I do not believe the "people" I refer to as Palestinians today, are either a religious entity or a specific ethnic entity. Just as I don't see Americas as either a religious entity or a specific ethnic entity.

I see the Palestinians as a product of Regional development, albeit, very bad development. I see them as the hereditary outcome of five (5) successive generations of regional families that have turn cancerous and virile with hate; unable to focus on anything productive or contributory to their immediate society, their regional culture, or humanity as a whole.

As for a peace plan, we have covered this already, although I note general silence when key points are raised, such as the 2002 Saudi peace plan. Palestinians have rejected peace plans in the past (they are not today, at least the PA is not), as they would have turned Palestine into a South African style bantustan, divided by race, with Arabs corresponding to the blacks. Would you accept such terms for your country?

(COMMENT)

I'm not sure I saw you specifically address His Majesty's Plan. My understanding is that it is not all that dissimilar to the Security Council Resolution 242. The two key points of the Saudi Arabian Plan are:

For Israel to:

a) To withdraw fully from the occupied Arab territories, including the Syrian Golan to the line of 4 June 1967, and from the territories in southern Lebanon that are still occupied;

(b) To arrive at a just and agreed solution to the Palestine refugee problem in accordance with United Nations General Assembly resolution 194 (III);

(c) To accept the establishment of an independent, sovereign Palestinian State in the Palestinian territories occupied since 4 June 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital;​

In exchange, the Arab States will:

(a) Consider the Arab-Israeli conflict at an end and enter into a peace agreement between them and Israel while achieving security for all the States of the region;

(b) Establish normal relations with Israel in the context of this comprehensive peace;​

There are some serious risks involved an this arrangement. The Council of the League of Arab States doesn't actually underwrite the agreement (if adopted) for enforcement purposes. But, it is up to the Israelis to determine if it is in their best interest to adopt such an agreement.

Most Respectfully,
R

It seems to me you are contradicting yourself here. First you say you have no judgements based on race or ethnicity, and then go on with a judgement, that is, the assignment of individual charateristics to an entire population. It doesn't matter what sort of label you put on the population, they are still an identifiable group, numbering in the millions, who lay claim to a certain culture and location. Individuals may be filled with hate, and individuals may be useless, but it is statistically impossible to assign such charateristics to ten million or so people, simply based on their sociological grouping.

A closer look at Palestinians shows that many are anything but useless, and, despite handicaps, have become doctors, engineers, and other professionals. As for refusing peace, you have listed the essentials of the current peace inititiative yourself, one that has been agreed to by the PA. It is a plan that grants great concessions to Israel. This is hardly retreating into hate, but moving forward towards reconciliation.

 

[georgephillip]

Rocco...when you say "(T)he property rights and values of the Arab Palestinian are protected and always have been" by making reference to the Balfour Declaration, you're whitewashing the western imperialistic values that mandated the creation of a "little loyal Jewi$h Ul$ter" in the heart of Arab nationalism.

If you honestly believe that wasn't the case, how do you explain the economic privileges Britain bestowed upon their loyal Jewish minority?

"When the war ended, Palestine became a British colony and the Zionists found they shared many interests with their new colonial masters.

"In 1917 Britain issued the Balfour Declaration, which was the first official recognition of the Zionist settlements in Palestine. Under the British Mandate Government, Britain privileged the small Jewish population over the Palestinians.

"In 1917 there were 56,000 Jews in Palestine and 644,000 Palestinian Arabs. Still Britain gave Jewish capital 90 percent of concessions for projects like building roads and power plants and by 1935, Zionists owned 872 out of the 1,212 industrial firms in Palestine.

"The British ruling class, which was rabidly anti-Semitic, had its own reasons..."

The Hidden Roots of Zionism

Assuming those statistics are correct (there are no footnotes) do you still believe Arab values and property rights were always protected?

 

[HistoryBefore67]

The moment you cite Chomsky as a source, you've lost all credibility.

 

[toastman]

Auteur, et al,

Sure, I'll answer the best I can.

Let me ask you flat out Mr R- Do you believe it reasonable and accurate to make judgements about people based on their race or ethicity?

(COMMENT)

No.


(COMMENT)

I do not believe the "people" I refer to as Palestinians today, are either a religious entity or a specific ethnic entity. Just as I don't see Americas as either a religious entity or a specific ethnic entity.

I see the Palestinians as a product of Regional development, albeit, very bad development. I see them as the hereditary outcome of five (5) successive generations of regional families that have turn cancerous and virile with hate; unable to focus on anything productive or contributory to their immediate society, their regional culture, or humanity as a whole.

As for a peace plan, we have covered this already, although I note general silence when key points are raised, such as the 2002 Saudi peace plan. Palestinians have rejected peace plans in the past (they are not today, at least the PA is not), as they would have turned Palestine into a South African style bantustan, divided by race, with Arabs corresponding to the blacks. Would you accept such terms for your country?

(COMMENT)

I'm not sure I saw you specifically address His Majesty's Plan. My understanding is that it is not all that dissimilar to the Security Council Resolution 242. The two key points of the Saudi Arabian Plan are:

For Israel to:

a) To withdraw fully from the occupied Arab territories, including the Syrian Golan to the line of 4 June 1967, and from the territories in southern Lebanon that are still occupied;

(b) To arrive at a just and agreed solution to the Palestine refugee problem in accordance with United Nations General Assembly resolution 194 (III);

(c) To accept the establishment of an independent, sovereign Palestinian State in the Palestinian territories occupied since 4 June 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital;​

In exchange, the Arab States will:

(a) Consider the Arab-Israeli conflict at an end and enter into a peace agreement between them and Israel while achieving security for all the States of the region;

(b) Establish normal relations with Israel in the context of this comprehensive peace;​

There are some serious risks involved an this arrangement. The Council of the League of Arab States doesn't actually underwrite the agreement (if adopted) for enforcement purposes. But, it is up to the Israelis to determine if it is in their best interest to adopt such an agreement.

Most Respectfully,
R

It seems to me you are contradicting yourself here. First you say you have no judgements based on race or ethnicity, and then go on with a judgement, that is, the assignment of individual charateristics to an entire population. It doesn't matter what sort of label you put on the population, they are still an identifiable group, numbering in the millions, who lay claim to a certain culture and location. Individuals may be filled with hate, and individuals may be useless, but it is statistically impossible to assign such charateristics to ten million or so people, simply based on their sociological grouping.

A closer look at Palestinians shows that many are anything but useless, and, despite handicaps, have become doctors, engineers, and other professionals. As for refusing peace, you have listed the essentials of the current peace inititiative yourself, one that has been agreed to by the PA. It is a plan that grants great concessions to Israel. This is hardly retreating into hate, but moving forward towards reconciliation.

You just love putting words in people's mouths, don't you ?

Where did Rocco say that all Palestinians are useless ????
Where did he say ALL of them are violent Jihadists ?

 

[Hossfly]

Auteur, et al,

Sure, I'll answer the best I can.

Let me ask you flat out Mr R- Do you believe it reasonable and accurate to make judgements about people based on their race or ethicity?

(COMMENT)

No.


(COMMENT)

I do not believe the "people" I refer to as Palestinians today, are either a religious entity or a specific ethnic entity. Just as I don't see Americas as either a religious entity or a specific ethnic entity.

I see the Palestinians as a product of Regional development, albeit, very bad development. I see them as the hereditary outcome of five (5) successive generations of regional families that have turn cancerous and virile with hate; unable to focus on anything productive or contributory to their immediate society, their regional culture, or humanity as a whole.

As for a peace plan, we have covered this already, although I note general silence when key points are raised, such as the 2002 Saudi peace plan. Palestinians have rejected peace plans in the past (they are not today, at least the PA is not), as they would have turned Palestine into a South African style bantustan, divided by race, with Arabs corresponding to the blacks. Would you accept such terms for your country?

(COMMENT)

I'm not sure I saw you specifically address His Majesty's Plan. My understanding is that it is not all that dissimilar to the Security Council Resolution 242. The two key points of the Saudi Arabian Plan are:

For Israel to:

a) To withdraw fully from the occupied Arab territories, including the Syrian Golan to the line of 4 June 1967, and from the territories in southern Lebanon that are still occupied;

(b) To arrive at a just and agreed solution to the Palestine refugee problem in accordance with United Nations General Assembly resolution 194 (III);

(c) To accept the establishment of an independent, sovereign Palestinian State in the Palestinian territories occupied since 4 June 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, with East Jerusalem as its capital;​

In exchange, the Arab States will:

(a) Consider the Arab-Israeli conflict at an end and enter into a peace agreement between them and Israel while achieving security for all the States of the region;

(b) Establish normal relations with Israel in the context of this comprehensive peace;​

There are some serious risks involved an this arrangement. The Council of the League of Arab States doesn't actually underwrite the agreement (if adopted) for enforcement purposes. But, it is up to the Israelis to determine if it is in their best interest to adopt such an agreement.

Most Respectfully,
R

It seems to me you are contradicting yourself here. First you say you have no judgements based on race or ethnicity, and then go on with a judgement, that is, the assignment of individual charateristics to an entire population. It doesn't matter what sort of label you put on the population, they are still an identifiable group, numbering in the millions, who lay claim to a certain culture and location. Individuals may be filled with hate, and individuals may be useless, but it is statistically impossible to assign such charateristics to ten million or so people, simply based on their sociological grouping.

A closer look at Palestinians shows that many are anything but useless, and, despite handicaps, have become doctors, engineers, and other professionals. As for refusing peace, you have listed the essentials of the current peace inititiative yourself, one that has been agreed to by the PA. It is a plan that grants great concessions to Israel. This is hardly retreating into hate, but moving forward towards reconciliation.

Here's a couple of stumbling blocks to the peace initiative. How do you explain these gems of wisdom?

Hamas: Palestinians will never recognize Israel - Israel Today | Israel News


Palestinian textbooks erase Israel, give no hope for peace - Israel Today | Israel News

 

[RoccoR]

Auteur, et al,

No, I think you and I have a difference in the way we think about cultures and ethnic backgrounds.

It seems to me you are contradicting yourself here. First you say you have no judgements based on race or ethnicity, and then go on with a judgement, that is, the assignment of individual charateristics to an entire population. It doesn't matter what sort of label you put on the population, they are still an identifiable group, numbering in the millions, who lay claim to a certain culture and location. Individuals may be filled with hate, and individuals may be useless, but it is statistically impossible to assign such charateristics to ten million or so people, simply based on their sociological grouping.

(COMMENT)

The numbers are totally unimportant to me. That is merely ancillary to the issue but not critical to the issue.

What I think of, when I say Arab Palestinian today, are those in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Ethnically, they are not so very different than those millions that are in the surrounding countries of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Maybe some minor differences in the gene pool, but not much. How they do differ, in some regards, is that they, culturally have moved on in some respects.

I don't care what their claims are. What I see is an identifiable group that has become so focused, and so depraved, that they literally halted all progressive activity that might contribute to the success, prosperity, and positive development of their culture and society.

I look at the Jordanian, and see something entirely different. Yet, they are essentially the same people; ethnically and culturally. It is a matter of focus.

A closer look at Palestinians shows that many are anything but useless, and, despite handicaps, have become doctors, engineers, and other professionals. As for refusing peace, you have listed the essentials of the current peace inititiative yourself, one that has been agreed to by the PA. It is a plan that grants great concessions to Israel. This is hardly retreating into hate, but moving forward towards reconciliation.

(COMMENT)

That is your observation. But it is not mine.

Israel's prime minister says the European Union should join U.S. attempts to restart stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace talks

Benjamin Netanyahu also reiterated Israel's position that talks should resume immediately and without preconditions, which is also the U.S. stance. He spoke Thursday at a meeting with EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton.

Ashton says Europe supports the resumption of talks, describing it as "the way forward."

But the Palestinians refuse to resume talks until Israel ends construction in territory they seek for their future state. Israel says settlements and other issues should be resolved through negotiations.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry is expected in the region next week for another attempt to get the sides together.

If attempts fail, the Palestinians have said they'd pursue a strategy of international recognition alone.

SOURCE: Israeli PM: EU Should Join US Push on Peace Talks - ABC News

Palestinian snipers fight for Assad
"We're on the front line with Palestinians fighting for the Assad regime. Snipers do much of the fighting, and death can come any second," Pleitgen says in a video released by CNN. "This is a pro-government sniper …YNET News · 6/23/2013

I don't care about ethnic background or cultural traits and characteristics. I care about the establish pattern of behavior. What trust and confidence does the Palestinian project.

The Palestinian has to first demonstrate they are on the path to peace. A good first step would be for Hamas (popularly supported by the people) to disband the military wing and to disarm the Islamic Jihad; and then change the Charter. That would be a first step. But as long has the Palestinian has goals and objectives that are a threat to Israeli sovereignty, talk is cheap.

Most Respectfully,
R

 

[Auteur]

Auteur, et al,

No, I think you and I have a difference in the way we think about cultures and ethnic backgrounds.

It seems to me you are contradicting yourself here. First you say you have no judgements based on race or ethnicity, and then go on with a judgement, that is, the assignment of individual charateristics to an entire population. It doesn't matter what sort of label you put on the population, they are still an identifiable group, numbering in the millions, who lay claim to a certain culture and location. Individuals may be filled with hate, and individuals may be useless, but it is statistically impossible to assign such charateristics to ten million or so people, simply based on their sociological grouping.

(COMMENT)

The numbers are totally unimportant to me. That is merely ancillary to the issue but not critical to the issue.

What I think of, when I say Arab Palestinian today, are those in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Ethnically, they are not so very different than those millions that are in the surrounding countries of Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt. Maybe some minor differences in the gene pool, but not much. How they do differ, in some regards, is that they, culturally have moved on in some respects.

I don't care what their claims are. What I see is an identifiable group that has become so focused, and so depraved, that they literally halted all progressive activity that might contribute to the success, prosperity, and positive development of their culture and society.

I look at the Jordanian, and see something entirely different. Yet, they are essentially the same people; ethnically and culturally. It is a matter of focus.

A closer look at Palestinians shows that many are anything but useless, and, despite handicaps, have become doctors, engineers, and other professionals. As for refusing peace, you have listed the essentials of the current peace inititiative yourself, one that has been agreed to by the PA. It is a plan that grants great concessions to Israel. This is hardly retreating into hate, but moving forward towards reconciliation.

(COMMENT)

That is your observation. But it is not mine.

Israel's prime minister says the European Union should join U.S. attempts to restart stalled Israeli-Palestinian peace talks

Benjamin Netanyahu also reiterated Israel's position that talks should resume immediately and without preconditions, which is also the U.S. stance. He spoke Thursday at a meeting with EU foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton.

Ashton says Europe supports the resumption of talks, describing it as "the way forward."

But the Palestinians refuse to resume talks until Israel ends construction in territory they seek for their future state. Israel says settlements and other issues should be resolved through negotiations.

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry is expected in the region next week for another attempt to get the sides together.

If attempts fail, the Palestinians have said they'd pursue a strategy of international recognition alone.

SOURCE: Israeli PM: EU Should Join US Push on Peace Talks - ABC News

Palestinian snipers fight for Assad
"We're on the front line with Palestinians fighting for the Assad regime. Snipers do much of the fighting, and death can come any second," Pleitgen says in a video released by CNN. "This is a pro-government sniper …YNET News · 6/23/2013

I don't care about ethnic background or cultural traits and characteristics. I care about the establish pattern of behavior. What trust and confidence does the Palestinian project.

The Palestinian has to first demonstrate they are on the path to peace. A good first step would be for Hamas (popularly supported by the people) to disband the military wing and to disarm the Islamic Jihad; and then change the Charter. That would be a first step. But as long has the Palestinian has goals and objectives that are a threat to Israeli sovereignty, talk is cheap.

Most Respectfully,
R

You are just saying the same thing in different words. You are saying those folks over there, those__________(fill in the blank) are all the same, that's just the way they are. We can come up with many identifiable groups- Arabs, blacks, the poor, the rich, whites, etc. If you think an entire population, numbering in the millions, are all the same, then that is prejudice, in the literal meaning of the term. You have pre-judged them in a non-scientific and inaccurate way. This is an important point because it is central to the ongoing conflict. Arabs have been assaulted by Jews, and so they think that all Jews are a certain way. Jews have been attacked by Arabs, and so think Arabs are all a certain way. This keeps the cycle of violence spinning.

Even if you conducted a series of scientific polls on attitudes in Palestine, it would still be limited in value. If you had conducted such a study regarding French attitudes to Germans between 1940 and 1944, what do you think the results would have been?

Inject some fairness into the negociations, make some progress, and then see how attitudes are. In fact, things were easing up a bit in the '90s, when peace was seen to be possible, if not right on the horizon. Times change and people move on. German tourists now visit Israel. But they are not going to change if one side remains second class citizens, and if history is distorted and denied.